The `metaphorical annihilation' of the Second Lebanon War (2006) from the Israeli political discourse

Abstract

Combining discourse analysis with gender theories and the discipline of political studies, this article focuses on two discursive phenomena: first, it demonstrates the flexibility and efficiency of exclusion mechanisms beyond the realm of minority relations to abstract concepts but especially political events; second, it demonstrates the power of metaphor for neutralizing the negative cargo of controversial political situations for the purpose of transforming them into consensual events. The case study explored is the Israeli political discourse during the 33 days of the Second Lebanon War (2006). By intensive use of 'war-normalizing metaphors', the political discourse 'annihilated' the war: these metaphorical constructions framed the war as a 'normal' event, an integral part of Israeli daily life, despite the 3970 katyusha rockets that fell within the borders of Israel and the massive Israel Defense Forces bombing of southern Lebanon. K E Y W O R D S : exclusion, Israeli political discourse, metaphor, Middle East conflict, political discourse analysis, political metaphor, 11 September, sport metaphor, warThe article's main theoretical claim is that practices of exclusion can be applied to abstract concepts in exactly the same way that they are applied to social groups. More specifically, controversial political events can be subjected to exclusion. The second theoretical claim investigated in this research is that the application of such practices to focal political situations requires creative efforts since political events, by their nature, are found at the core of the national agenda and cannot be simply ignored. Thus, in order to exclude controversial events, the political discourse 1 is required to 'invent' sophisticated exclusion mechanisms that produce indirect exclusion, a discursive process that preserves the existence of the event but totally alters its perceived characteristics.

Language and Civilian Deaths: Denying Responsibility for Casualties in the Gaza Conflict 2014

“…In contrast, Israeli attacks were referred to in accounts where they: (1) were not responsible for civilian deaths (e.g., “It was not because they were fighting civilians.” —Lerner 21.7.14); (2) were directed at military targets (e.g., “We want to hit as much as we can the terrorist infrastructure of Hamas.” —Peri 12.7.14); or (3) were modified to save civilians (e.g., “There are frequent attacks that are aborted because we see that there are civilians in the neighborhood.” —Taub 4.8.14). Israeli actions were also more likely to be described in general ways which did not clearly specify weapons, violence, or the victims of that violence (e.g., “ground operations”; “do something about it”; “go in there and clean it up”; see also extract 13) (for other examples, see Gavriely‐Nuri, ; Oddo, ). The following extract illustrates this contrast.…”

“…Researchers have identified some of the general discursive practices used by leaders to justify going to war to their populations (e.g., Bhatia, ; Gavriely‐Nuri, ; Graham, Keenan, & Dowd, ; Hodges, 2013; Lazar & Lazar, ; Oddo, ; Podvornaia, ). Although less research has examined the specific issue of how civilian deaths are managed in political discourse, researchers have identified a number of communication practices in conflicts involving the United States in Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam.…”

The outbreak of peace in Israeli children's periodicals, 1977–1979

“…Discursive analysis has explored Israeli peace narratives (Hermann 2001;Salomon 2004;Yadgar 2004;Biton and Salomon 2006;Yadgar 2006); linguistic analysis has richly dwelled on peace and media frames (Michelson 1993;Shinar 2000Shinar , 2004, whereas cultural analysis has dealt with peace metaphors (Bridgeman 2000;Yadgar 2003;Gavriely-Nuri 2008. One conclusion common to these studies states that the concept's specific content frequently remains outside the boundaries of research, its meaning being perceived as clear-cut and self-evident.…”

Threat, Victimhood, and Peace: Debating the 2011 Palestinian UN State Membership Bid

“…Tessler () examines political discourse surrounding the first Intifada, and compares the discourses of territorial maximalism (retaining control of the West Bank) and territorial compromise (giving up land for peace) as a response to the Palestinian uprising. More recently, Gavriely‐Nuri () has examined “war‐naturalizing” in political discourse concerning the 2006 Lebanon War, which constructed war as a normal aspect of daily life in Israel, thereby making it appear more reasonable and acceptable. Using a similar approach, Gavriely‐Nuri () has shown how Israeli political discourse attempts to enhance Israel's self‐image as a peace‐seeker while delegitimizing out‐groups.…”