The idiosyncratic language of Israeli ‘peace’: A Cultural Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis (CCDA)

Abstract

Combining peace studies, cultural studies and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), this study demonstrates a Cultural approach to Critical Discourse Analysis (CCDA) of political peace discourses. Inspired by the UNESCO definition for the 'culture of peace', the study offers two peace discourse models: a supportive peace discourse versus an oppressive one. From a theoretical perspective, CCDA enables a culturally comparative study of 'peace', its conceptual boundaries and semantic margins. From a practical perspective, application of such an approach within 'local' discourses may remove unique obstacles and cultural barriers to the realization of peace processes. Application of the CCDA to Israel's political peace discourse revealed that use of the term in this discourse served two purposes: first, the construction of the Israeli speaker's positive self-image as a peace-seeker together with delegitimation of rivals; and second, the facilitation of public acceptance of strategically problematic actions, primarily use of military violence, by their presentation as part of the peace discourse.

‘This is ordinary behaviour’: Categorization and culpability in Hamas leaders’ accounts of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict

“…Some research here focuses on descriptions of actions that justify and legitimize violence (Amer, 2009; Buttny & Ellis, 2007; Gavriely‐Nuri, 2008). Similar discursive work is found in relation to the outcomes that different speakers propose for the conflict (Gavriely‐Nuri, 2010; Kuzar, 2008). Such work shows how speakers on both sides of the dispute offer somewhat different versions of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of their own and the other party's actions in arguing for very different outcomes to the dispute.…”

‘Well, our goal is to achieve sustainable quiet and security for our people’: negotiating calls for ceasefires in the Gaza War of 2014.

“…Researchers show that Israel is routinely treated as responsible for achieving peace (Amer, 2017;Gavriely-Nuri, 2010). More recently, Friedman and Herfroy-Mischler (2020) show that media coverage and forms of blame vary in accordance with what is considered as the stronger or weaker party in the conflict.…”

“…These justifications routinely attribute blame to the other side, while managing coming across as actively seeking conflict or wanting to inflict harm to the other side. Researchers have increasingly employed discourse analytic techniques in examining how 'peace', 'conflict', and 'violence' are constructed by actors involved in the conflict (and others) (Gavriely-Nuri, 2010). Bar-Tal, Abutbul-Selinger, and Raviv (2014) argue that this is particularly so for intractable Negotiating 'ceasefire' in the Gaza War (2014) 3 conflicts such as that involving Israel and Palestinian parties, for the central concern with culpability in the conflict.…”

Social Psychology, War and Peace: Towards a Critical Discursive Peace Psychology

“…It should perhaps go without saying that the same applies to ‘peace’, and yet peace researchers (from psychology and other disciplines) have spent a great deal of time arriving at definitions of peace (see Wenden, 1995, for a summary), and comparatively little time exploring the language of peace (for exceptions, see Durrheim, 1997; Friedrich, 2007; Schäffner & Wenden, 1995). Indeed, as Gavriely‐Nuri (2010, p. 566) has recently argued, ‘in most peace research, “peace” and “peace discourse” are terms whose meanings are usually taken for granted and treated as “common knowledge”’. One immediate priority for a critical discursive peace psychology should therefore be to interrogate how the language of peace is used.…”