Difference between revisions of "Kaposi2018"
ElliottHoey (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Dávid Kaposi |Title=In the Shadow of the Other: Arguments About the First Gaza War in British Conservative Editorials |Editor(s)=S. Gib...") |
ElliottHoey (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|Editor(s)=S. Gibson | |Editor(s)=S. Gibson | ||
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Discursive Psychology; Gaza; Israel; Palestine | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Discursive Psychology; Gaza; Israel; Palestine | ||
| − | |Key= | + | |Key=Kaposi2018 |
|Year=2018 | |Year=2018 | ||
|Language=English | |Language=English | ||
Revision as of 10:05, 6 December 2018
| Kaposi2018 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Kaposi2018 |
| Author(s) | Dávid Kaposi |
| Title | In the Shadow of the Other: Arguments About the First Gaza War in British Conservative Editorials |
| Editor(s) | S. Gibson |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Discursive Psychology, Gaza, Israel, Palestine |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2018 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | 119-132 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99094-1_7 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | Discourse, Peace, and Conflict |
| Chapter | |
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.
Notes
