Analyzing Benjamin Netanyahu's speech pattern and behaviors through his reaction to the United Nations declaration in 'The Hague'
 |
| Photo Credits to Mohamed Hassan ( Pixabay) |
(This is the
social media post/tweet/post on X I will be discussing/ the tweet is also
included in CNN’s article relating to the matter Top
UN court says Israeli occupation of West Bank and East Jerusalem is illegal |
CNN)
On
July 19, 2024, for the first time ever the United Nation’s International Court
of Justice announced that Israel’s presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem
is illegal, the convection was held in The Hague, Netherlands. This judgement
was ruled after the ICJ (International court of Justice) deemed Israel’s
practices in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and their occupation since the
1967 in violation of international law; This included confiscating land,
building Israeli settlements in the territories, and depriving Palestinians of
natural resources and the right to self-determination. Additionally, the court
stated that Israel’s declaration of Jerusalem as its capital fueled and
entrenched their control over the territories.
While
the Palestinian Authority welcomed the ICJ’s opinion, the ministry of foreign
affairs in Israel along with Israel’s Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposed
and condemned the opinion; Netanyahu showed his disapproval of the ruling in a
post on platform X, which is previously known as Twitter; the post works on asserting
Israel's rights and dismisses opposing views, that of international
organizations and the PA’s. One can reflect on the usage of various speech acts
in this for specific implications that showcase assertiveness and declarative
tones.
According
to John Searle’s speech acts (1976), an Assertive speech act functions as if
the speaker is committed to the truth of the proposition, and it comes in the form
of a statement in this case; Netanyahu asserts that “The Jewish people are not
Occupiers in their own land,” then later follows “including in our eternal capital Jerusalem
nor in Judea and Samaria”. He alludes to the proposed biblical historical
significance of the Jewish people in the lands, this is specifically utilized
in the narrative framing he chooses to use, by using the biblical terms “Judea
and Samaria” which in the bible places where Jewish people resided and
contained historical significance to their growth as an ethnoreligious group.
Furthermore, he continues to utilize other
functions such as the Declarative function, though it is not an official declaration
by the state of Israel regarding the situation Netanyahu’s position and
statement function similarly to solidify Israel’s narrative and claim; the
declarative nature is implicit in the forceful assertion of rights and the
dismissal of opposing views, positioning Israel’s stance as the ‘accepted
reality’. Lastly, the usage of the word “absurd” to brand the opinion by the
ICJ, implies that opinions by the Hauge are rejected and are viewed with
disdain by him.
To
fully understand the communicative impact of this statement, it is essential to
analyze it through the lens of Austin’s speech act theory, specifically
examining the distinctions between locutionary, illocutionary, and
perlocutionary acts, as well as the flouting of Grice's maxims in the
Cooperative Principle to create implicature. According to Austin’s theory, the
locutionary act refers to the literal content of an utterance—in this case,
Netanyahu’s assertion that Jewish people are not occupiers and that opinions
from the Hague are “absurd.” However, Netanyahu’s tweet performs several
illocutionary acts. It starts by asserting Israel’s sovereignty and legitimacy
over the disputed territories of Jerusalem and the West Bank, by framing these
areas as the “historical homeland” and “ancestral home” of the Jewish people,
Netanyahu’s speech act affirms Israel’s rightful claims and, by extension,
rejects any notion of occupation. Moreover, Netanyahu’s dismissal from “the
Hague” executes an illocutionary act of rejecting and delegitimizing these
opinions, framing them as irrational and unworthy of serious consideration, and
the tweet functions as a call to action, “implicitly” urging Pro-settlement
Zionists to reject international criticism.
The
post/tweet too generates a perlocutionary effect, which serves to talk about
the impact the speech act has on the audience, and as we stated before this
reinforces support and belief in Israel’s alleged sovereignty and policy over
the territories, despite the condemnation of the international community of
such presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In contrast, this post in a
way alludes to provocation and continues to escalate tensions of who voiced
support for the ICJ decision and the Palestinians who are affected by such
policies or sway neutral observers due to the polarizing language, thus
disengaging them from the conversation or in opposition; the post’s
perlocutionary effect extends beyond mere communication, by influencing the
attitudes and behaviors of various audience segments.
Netanyahu’s
post is a pivotal illustration of how political language can flout Grice’s
maxims to reinforce a particular narrative; Grice’s maxim of quality, which
demands that a speaker only say what they believe to be true and for which they
have sufficient evidence. By labeling the ICJ’s opinions as “absurd,” Netanyahu
does more than just express disagreement; he suggests that these views are not
merely incorrect but are so baseless and irrational that they do not even merit
serious consideration. This choice of language creates an implicature that any
opposition to Israel’s claims lacks credibility and is, therefore, unworthy of
rational debate. The term “absurd” is a powerful rhetorical tool because it
carries a strong emotional charge, immediately discrediting the opposing
position without engaging with the substantive details of the argument. This
dismissiveness implies that the speaker’s (Netanyahu’s) position is
self-evidently correct, leaving little room for counterarguments, thus
bypassing the need for detailed evidence or reasoning.
Furthermore,
Netanyahu’s flouting of the maxim of manner, which emphasizes clarity and the
avoidance of ambiguity, is equally strategic. The term “absurd” is deliberately
vague, instead, it serves as a rhetorical device to provoke an emotional
response from the audience, rather than inviting a rational discourse. The
strategic ambiguity of the term “absurd” allows Netanyahu to communicate a
strong stance while avoiding the complexities of the legal and historical
arguments at play. This results in the strengthening of his rhetorical
position, as it suggests that the opposing view is not even worth discussing in
depth, thereby marginalizing any dissent.
Netanyahu’s
response also employs specific impoliteness strategies, particularly through
its attack on the positive face of those who support the ICJ’s opinions. A
positive face, in Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, refers to an
individual’s desire to be liked, respected, and acknowledged. By dismissing the
UN’s opinions as “absurd,” Netanyahu not only undermines the credibility of
these opinions but also attacks the intellectual and moral integrity of those
who hold them. This delegitimizes those who oppose Israel’s claims, positioning
them as ‘irrational’ and unworthy of respect. The use of such dismissive
language is a direct affront to the positive face of his critics, making it
clear that their views are not only incorrect but also fundamentally flawed.
Simultaneously,
the post threatens the negative face of international bodies like the United
Nations, and by rejecting their authority and legitimacy outright, Netanyahu
diminishes their role and influence in the international legal arena. This is a
significant face-threatening act, as it directly challenges the authority of
these bodies to make legal determinations about Israel’s actions. In doing so,
Netanyahu reinforces his position and that of Israel, enhancing their positive
face by portraying them as resolute, strong, and justified in their actions.
The post thus serves to showcase the perception of Israel’s moral and legal
standing regarding the settlements issue, while simultaneously undermining the
authority and relevance of those who criticize it.
(This is the social media post/tweet/post on X I will be discussing/ the tweet is also included in CNN’s article relating to the matter Top UN court says Israeli occupation of West Bank and East Jerusalem is illegal | CNN)
On
July 19, 2024, for the first time ever the United Nation’s International Court
of Justice announced that Israel’s presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem
is illegal, the convection was held in The Hague, Netherlands. This judgement
was ruled after the ICJ (International court of Justice) deemed Israel’s
practices in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and their occupation since the
1967 in violation of international law; This included confiscating land,
building Israeli settlements in the territories, and depriving Palestinians of
natural resources and the right to self-determination. Additionally, the court
stated that Israel’s declaration of Jerusalem as its capital fueled and
entrenched their control over the territories.
While the Palestinian Authority welcomed the ICJ’s opinion, the ministry of foreign affairs in Israel along with Israel’s Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposed and condemned the opinion; Netanyahu showed his disapproval of the ruling in a post on platform X, which is previously known as Twitter; the post works on asserting Israel's rights and dismisses opposing views, that of international organizations and the PA’s. One can reflect on the usage of various speech acts in this for specific implications that showcase assertiveness and declarative tones.
According to John Searle’s speech acts (1976), an Assertive speech act functions as if the speaker is committed to the truth of the proposition, and it comes in the form of a statement in this case; Netanyahu asserts that “The Jewish people are not Occupiers in their own land,” then later follows “including in our eternal capital Jerusalem nor in Judea and Samaria”. He alludes to the proposed biblical historical significance of the Jewish people in the lands, this is specifically utilized in the narrative framing he chooses to use, by using the biblical terms “Judea and Samaria” which in the bible places where Jewish people resided and contained historical significance to their growth as an ethnoreligious group.
Furthermore, he continues to utilize other functions such as the Declarative function, though it is not an official declaration by the state of Israel regarding the situation Netanyahu’s position and statement function similarly to solidify Israel’s narrative and claim; the declarative nature is implicit in the forceful assertion of rights and the dismissal of opposing views, positioning Israel’s stance as the ‘accepted reality’. Lastly, the usage of the word “absurd” to brand the opinion by the ICJ, implies that opinions by the Hauge are rejected and are viewed with disdain by him.
To fully understand the communicative impact of this statement, it is essential to analyze it through the lens of Austin’s speech act theory, specifically examining the distinctions between locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts, as well as the flouting of Grice's maxims in the Cooperative Principle to create implicature. According to Austin’s theory, the locutionary act refers to the literal content of an utterance—in this case, Netanyahu’s assertion that Jewish people are not occupiers and that opinions from the Hague are “absurd.” However, Netanyahu’s tweet performs several illocutionary acts. It starts by asserting Israel’s sovereignty and legitimacy over the disputed territories of Jerusalem and the West Bank, by framing these areas as the “historical homeland” and “ancestral home” of the Jewish people, Netanyahu’s speech act affirms Israel’s rightful claims and, by extension, rejects any notion of occupation. Moreover, Netanyahu’s dismissal from “the Hague” executes an illocutionary act of rejecting and delegitimizing these opinions, framing them as irrational and unworthy of serious consideration, and the tweet functions as a call to action, “implicitly” urging Pro-settlement Zionists to reject international criticism.
The post/tweet too generates a perlocutionary effect, which serves to talk about the impact the speech act has on the audience, and as we stated before this reinforces support and belief in Israel’s alleged sovereignty and policy over the territories, despite the condemnation of the international community of such presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In contrast, this post in a way alludes to provocation and continues to escalate tensions of who voiced support for the ICJ decision and the Palestinians who are affected by such policies or sway neutral observers due to the polarizing language, thus disengaging them from the conversation or in opposition; the post’s perlocutionary effect extends beyond mere communication, by influencing the attitudes and behaviors of various audience segments.
Netanyahu’s post is a pivotal illustration of how political language can flout Grice’s maxims to reinforce a particular narrative; Grice’s maxim of quality, which demands that a speaker only say what they believe to be true and for which they have sufficient evidence. By labeling the ICJ’s opinions as “absurd,” Netanyahu does more than just express disagreement; he suggests that these views are not merely incorrect but are so baseless and irrational that they do not even merit serious consideration. This choice of language creates an implicature that any opposition to Israel’s claims lacks credibility and is, therefore, unworthy of rational debate. The term “absurd” is a powerful rhetorical tool because it carries a strong emotional charge, immediately discrediting the opposing position without engaging with the substantive details of the argument. This dismissiveness implies that the speaker’s (Netanyahu’s) position is self-evidently correct, leaving little room for counterarguments, thus bypassing the need for detailed evidence or reasoning.
Furthermore, Netanyahu’s flouting of the maxim of manner, which emphasizes clarity and the avoidance of ambiguity, is equally strategic. The term “absurd” is deliberately vague, instead, it serves as a rhetorical device to provoke an emotional response from the audience, rather than inviting a rational discourse. The strategic ambiguity of the term “absurd” allows Netanyahu to communicate a strong stance while avoiding the complexities of the legal and historical arguments at play. This results in the strengthening of his rhetorical position, as it suggests that the opposing view is not even worth discussing in depth, thereby marginalizing any dissent.
Netanyahu’s response also employs specific impoliteness strategies, particularly through its attack on the positive face of those who support the ICJ’s opinions. A positive face, in Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, refers to an individual’s desire to be liked, respected, and acknowledged. By dismissing the UN’s opinions as “absurd,” Netanyahu not only undermines the credibility of these opinions but also attacks the intellectual and moral integrity of those who hold them. This delegitimizes those who oppose Israel’s claims, positioning them as ‘irrational’ and unworthy of respect. The use of such dismissive language is a direct affront to the positive face of his critics, making it clear that their views are not only incorrect but also fundamentally flawed.
Simultaneously, the post threatens the negative face of international bodies like the United Nations, and by rejecting their authority and legitimacy outright, Netanyahu diminishes their role and influence in the international legal arena. This is a significant face-threatening act, as it directly challenges the authority of these bodies to make legal determinations about Israel’s actions. In doing so, Netanyahu reinforces his position and that of Israel, enhancing their positive face by portraying them as resolute, strong, and justified in their actions. The post thus serves to showcase the perception of Israel’s moral and legal standing regarding the settlements issue, while simultaneously undermining the authority and relevance of those who criticize it.
While the Palestinian Authority welcomed the ICJ’s opinion, the ministry of foreign affairs in Israel along with Israel’s Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposed and condemned the opinion; Netanyahu showed his disapproval of the ruling in a post on platform X, which is previously known as Twitter; the post works on asserting Israel's rights and dismisses opposing views, that of international organizations and the PA’s. One can reflect on the usage of various speech acts in this for specific implications that showcase assertiveness and declarative tones.
According to John Searle’s speech acts (1976), an Assertive speech act functions as if the speaker is committed to the truth of the proposition, and it comes in the form of a statement in this case; Netanyahu asserts that “The Jewish people are not Occupiers in their own land,” then later follows “including in our eternal capital Jerusalem nor in Judea and Samaria”. He alludes to the proposed biblical historical significance of the Jewish people in the lands, this is specifically utilized in the narrative framing he chooses to use, by using the biblical terms “Judea and Samaria” which in the bible places where Jewish people resided and contained historical significance to their growth as an ethnoreligious group.
Furthermore, he continues to utilize other functions such as the Declarative function, though it is not an official declaration by the state of Israel regarding the situation Netanyahu’s position and statement function similarly to solidify Israel’s narrative and claim; the declarative nature is implicit in the forceful assertion of rights and the dismissal of opposing views, positioning Israel’s stance as the ‘accepted reality’. Lastly, the usage of the word “absurd” to brand the opinion by the ICJ, implies that opinions by the Hauge are rejected and are viewed with disdain by him.
To fully understand the communicative impact of this statement, it is essential to analyze it through the lens of Austin’s speech act theory, specifically examining the distinctions between locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts, as well as the flouting of Grice's maxims in the Cooperative Principle to create implicature. According to Austin’s theory, the locutionary act refers to the literal content of an utterance—in this case, Netanyahu’s assertion that Jewish people are not occupiers and that opinions from the Hague are “absurd.” However, Netanyahu’s tweet performs several illocutionary acts. It starts by asserting Israel’s sovereignty and legitimacy over the disputed territories of Jerusalem and the West Bank, by framing these areas as the “historical homeland” and “ancestral home” of the Jewish people, Netanyahu’s speech act affirms Israel’s rightful claims and, by extension, rejects any notion of occupation. Moreover, Netanyahu’s dismissal from “the Hague” executes an illocutionary act of rejecting and delegitimizing these opinions, framing them as irrational and unworthy of serious consideration, and the tweet functions as a call to action, “implicitly” urging Pro-settlement Zionists to reject international criticism.
The post/tweet too generates a perlocutionary effect, which serves to talk about the impact the speech act has on the audience, and as we stated before this reinforces support and belief in Israel’s alleged sovereignty and policy over the territories, despite the condemnation of the international community of such presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In contrast, this post in a way alludes to provocation and continues to escalate tensions of who voiced support for the ICJ decision and the Palestinians who are affected by such policies or sway neutral observers due to the polarizing language, thus disengaging them from the conversation or in opposition; the post’s perlocutionary effect extends beyond mere communication, by influencing the attitudes and behaviors of various audience segments.
Netanyahu’s post is a pivotal illustration of how political language can flout Grice’s maxims to reinforce a particular narrative; Grice’s maxim of quality, which demands that a speaker only say what they believe to be true and for which they have sufficient evidence. By labeling the ICJ’s opinions as “absurd,” Netanyahu does more than just express disagreement; he suggests that these views are not merely incorrect but are so baseless and irrational that they do not even merit serious consideration. This choice of language creates an implicature that any opposition to Israel’s claims lacks credibility and is, therefore, unworthy of rational debate. The term “absurd” is a powerful rhetorical tool because it carries a strong emotional charge, immediately discrediting the opposing position without engaging with the substantive details of the argument. This dismissiveness implies that the speaker’s (Netanyahu’s) position is self-evidently correct, leaving little room for counterarguments, thus bypassing the need for detailed evidence or reasoning.
Furthermore, Netanyahu’s flouting of the maxim of manner, which emphasizes clarity and the avoidance of ambiguity, is equally strategic. The term “absurd” is deliberately vague, instead, it serves as a rhetorical device to provoke an emotional response from the audience, rather than inviting a rational discourse. The strategic ambiguity of the term “absurd” allows Netanyahu to communicate a strong stance while avoiding the complexities of the legal and historical arguments at play. This results in the strengthening of his rhetorical position, as it suggests that the opposing view is not even worth discussing in depth, thereby marginalizing any dissent.
Netanyahu’s response also employs specific impoliteness strategies, particularly through its attack on the positive face of those who support the ICJ’s opinions. A positive face, in Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, refers to an individual’s desire to be liked, respected, and acknowledged. By dismissing the UN’s opinions as “absurd,” Netanyahu not only undermines the credibility of these opinions but also attacks the intellectual and moral integrity of those who hold them. This delegitimizes those who oppose Israel’s claims, positioning them as ‘irrational’ and unworthy of respect. The use of such dismissive language is a direct affront to the positive face of his critics, making it clear that their views are not only incorrect but also fundamentally flawed.
Simultaneously, the post threatens the negative face of international bodies like the United Nations, and by rejecting their authority and legitimacy outright, Netanyahu diminishes their role and influence in the international legal arena. This is a significant face-threatening act, as it directly challenges the authority of these bodies to make legal determinations about Israel’s actions. In doing so, Netanyahu reinforces his position and that of Israel, enhancing their positive face by portraying them as resolute, strong, and justified in their actions. The post thus serves to showcase the perception of Israel’s moral and legal standing regarding the settlements issue, while simultaneously undermining the authority and relevance of those who criticize it.
.jpeg)
Comments
Post a Comment