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%


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%


0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%


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


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


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


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


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.

Socio-psychological barriers and bridges to peace › sites › default › files... · Because the...

Documents

Transcript of Socio-psychological barriers and bridges to peace › sites › default › files... · Because the...