In the Shadow of the Other: Arguments About the First Gaza War in British Conservative Editorials

Part of the Peace Psychology Book Series book series (PPBS)


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.


Discursive psychology Gaza Israel Palestine Peace psychology 


  1. Amnesty International. (2009). Israel/Gaza: Operation “Cast Lead’: 22 days of death and destruction (Index: MDE 15/015/2009).Google Scholar
  2. Billig, M. (1999). Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in conversation analysis. Discourse and Society, 10, 543–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Conway, M. (Ed.). (1992). Memory and discourse: Special edition. The Psychologist, 5, 439–455.Google Scholar
  4. Corcoran, T. (2009). Second nature. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 375–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Corcoran, T. (2010). What else life if not awkward? British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 679–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards, D., Middleton, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Remembering, reconstruction and rhetoric: A rejoinder. The Psychologist, 5, 453–455.Google Scholar
  8. Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992a). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992b). The chancellor’s memory: Rhetoric and truth in discursive remembering. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards, D., Potter, J., & Middleton, D. (1992). Toward a discursive psychology of remembering. The Psychologist, 5, 441–446.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Human Rights Watch. (2009). Rain of fire: Israel’s unlawful use of white phosphorous in Gaza. New York: Human Rights Watch.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaposi, D. (2014). Violence and understanding in Gaza: The British broadsheets’ coverage of the war. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaposi, D. (2017). A proper study of Gaza? Methodological implications of a large-scale study. British Journal of Middle East Studies, 44, 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morris, B. (1999). Righteous victims: A history of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881–1998. London: Knopf Doubleday.Google Scholar
  18. Neisser, U. (1981). John Dean’s memory: A case study. Cognition, 9, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Neisser, U. (1992). The psychology of memory and the sociolinguistics of remembering. The Psychologist, 5, 451–452.Google Scholar
  20. Philo, G., & Berry, M. (2011). More bad news from Israel. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  21. Potter, J. (2010). Contemporary discursive psychology: Issues, prospects and Corcoran’s awkward ontology. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 657–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schegloff, E. (1998). Reply to Wetherell. Discourse and Society, 9, 413–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schegloff, E. (1999a). ‘Schegloff’s text’ as ‘Billig’s data’: A critical reply. Discourse and Society, 10, 558–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schegloff, E. (1999b). Naivety vs sophistication or discipline vs self-indulgence: A rejoinder to Billig. Discourse and Society, 10, 577–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. The Goldstone Report (2011). Howoritz, A., Ratner, L. & Weiss, P. (eds). New York: Nation Books.Google Scholar
  26. Walzer, M. (2000). Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations (3rd ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Walzer, M. (2006). Arguing about war. New York: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society, 9, 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations