Abstract
This chapter presents some aspects of a large-scale empirical study on the British broadsheets’ coverage of the first Gaza war (2008–2009) between Israel and the Palestinians of Gaza. In particular, it focuses on various conceptual areas in the editorials of conservative “quality” newspapers, The Times and the Daily Telegraph, where the role of other agents (i.e. different from the subject or different from the one that the subject identifies with) was made relevant by the writers: first, the fighters of Hamas; second, the journalists critiquing the Israeli offensive and thereby exhibiting an alternative political-moral perspective to the conservative newspapers. Analysing these accounts, it will be argued that moving beyond the “us” and “them” dichotomy is indeed a heady task, mainly for the reason that whenever “they” make an appearance in “our” argument, “they” are inevitably presented as occupying a position that cannot be engaged with; a position beyond dialogue, persuasion, and even education. The chapter will conclude with the analysis of the epistemological (indeed, ontological) underpinning of such a dichotomy, and argue that any (i.e. conservative or non-conservative) proposal for a viable peace needs to adopt a different rationale.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
There is no space here to go into any detail, but the exchanges at the end of the 1990s, first between Margaret Wetherell (1998) and Emanuel Schegloff (1999a), and then as a follow-up between Schegloff (1999a, 1999b) and Michael Billig (1999a), may have formed an important point at which discursive psychology ultimately aligned itself with conversation analysis as opposed to any kind of critical social science. Indicatively, it was a conversation analyst (i.e. Schegloff) who argued from a perspective now dominating discursive psychology, and it was two academics (i.e. Wetherell and Billig) associated with the inception of discursive psychology who argued from recognisably critical perspectives.
- 2.
The editorials used in the present analysis are as follows: Daily Telegraph, “Hamas and Iran pose a threat to the world” (29 December 2008, p. 17); Daily Telegraph, “A ceasefire would be in Israel’s interests” (10 January 2009, p. 23); The Times, “Bitter Harvest” (29 December 2008, p. 2); The Times, “In Defense of Israel” (10 January 2009, p. 2); The Times, “Israel’s cause is just but some of its tactics are self-defeating” (16 January 2009, p. 2).
- 3.
In their general output, the frequency of the two newspapers’ references to the blockade was more or less equal (cf., Kaposi, 2014, p. 62).
- 4.
White phosphorous is a highly incendiary chemical material. It was used during the war by the Israeli forces as a smokescreen and as such not automatically illegally. However, its use in heavily built-up areas is very problematic even as an obscurant, for its incendiary nature will almost inevitably cause serious side-effects. It is for this reason that all the human rights investigations condemned the manner in which Israel deployed white phosphorous, with Human Rights Watch (2009, p. 65) concluding that it was “indiscriminate or disproportionate, and indicate[d] the commission of war crimes”. Although at the time Israel heavily contested these positions, in 2013 it announced that it would completely stop using the material in built-up areas.
References
Amnesty International. (2009). Israel/Gaza: Operation “Cast Lead’: 22 days of death and destruction (Index: MDE 15/015/2009).
Billig, M. (1999). Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in conversation analysis. Discourse and Society, 10, 543–558.
Conway, M. (Ed.). (1992). Memory and discourse: Special edition. The Psychologist, 5, 439–455.
Corcoran, T. (2009). Second nature. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 375–388.
Corcoran, T. (2010). What else life if not awkward? British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 679–684.
Edwards, D., Ashmore, M., & Potter, J. (1995). Death and furniture: The rhetoric, politics and theology of bottom line arguments against relativism. History of the Human Sciences, 8, 25–49.
Edwards, D., Middleton, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Remembering, reconstruction and rhetoric: A rejoinder. The Psychologist, 5, 453–455.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992a). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992b). The chancellor’s memory: Rhetoric and truth in discursive remembering. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 187–215.
Edwards, D., Potter, J., & Middleton, D. (1992). Toward a discursive psychology of remembering. The Psychologist, 5, 441–446.
Howoritz, A., Ratner, L., & Weiss, P. (Eds.). (2011). The goldstone report: The legacy of the landmark investigation of the Gaza conflict. New York: Nation Books.
Human Rights Watch. (2009). Rain of fire: Israel’s unlawful use of white phosphorous in Gaza. New York: Human Rights Watch.
Kaposi, D. (2012). Truth and rhetoric: The promise of John Dean's memory to the discipline of psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 42, 1–19.
Kaposi, D. (2014). Violence and understanding in Gaza: The British broadsheets’ coverage of the war. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kaposi, D. (2016). On the possibility of critiquing Israel: The Times’ engagement with the Israeli use of white phosphorous during the first Gaza war. Media, Conflict & War, 9, 272–289.
Kaposi, D. (2017). A proper study of Gaza? Methodological implications of a large-scale study. British Journal of Middle East Studies, 44, 393–407.
Morris, B. (1999). Righteous victims: A history of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881–1998. London: Knopf Doubleday.
Neisser, U. (1981). John Dean’s memory: A case study. Cognition, 9, 1–22.
Neisser, U. (1992). The psychology of memory and the sociolinguistics of remembering. The Psychologist, 5, 451–452.
Philo, G., & Berry, M. (2011). More bad news from Israel. London: Pluto Press.
Potter, J. (2010). Contemporary discursive psychology: Issues, prospects and Corcoran’s awkward ontology. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 657–678.
Schegloff, E. (1998). Reply to Wetherell. Discourse and Society, 9, 413–416.
Schegloff, E. (1999a). ‘Schegloff’s text’ as ‘Billig’s data’: A critical reply. Discourse and Society, 10, 558–572.
Schegloff, E. (1999b). Naivety vs sophistication or discipline vs self-indulgence: A rejoinder to Billig. Discourse and Society, 10, 577–582.
The Goldstone Report (2011). Howoritz, A., Ratner, L. & Weiss, P. (eds). New York: Nation Books.
Walzer, M. (2000). Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations (3rd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Walzer, M. (2006). Arguing about war. New York: Yale University Press.
Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society, 9, 387–412.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kaposi, D. (2018). In the Shadow of the Other: Arguments About the First Gaza War in British Conservative Editorials. In: Gibson, S. (eds) Discourse, Peace, and Conflict. Peace Psychology Book Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99094-1_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99094-1_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99093-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99094-1
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)