Re-thinking inclusion as a discursive practice: the case of hamas in the Israeli discourse after 2006

Abstract

The role of ‘inclusiveness’ in assessing the legitimacy of international negotiations assumes a central position in both theoretical and empirical studies of conflict-management and resolution. The focus of this scholarship, however, has been often restricted to the dynamics of physical participation and reciprocal communication without paying due attention to the discursive and linguistic level at which intersubjective understanding occurs. This article re-conceptualizes inclusiveness as a discursive practice and develops a multidimensional framework to assess its implications within the context of international conflict resolution. Building on previous work on linguistics and metaphor analysis, we develop four categories that are used to assess the level discursive inclusiveness of Hamas in the Israeli government’s official statements after 2006 and preceding the 2010 peace talks: (i) war-like; (ii) criminal-like; (iii) evil-like; and (iv) adversary-like. Furthermore, we show how the circumstances in which statements were made (i.e. their field of action) further influence the metaphorical structure of the Israeli official discourse.