Search results

"Transforming Media Coverage of Violent Conflicts offers a fresh view of contemporary violent conflicts, suggesting an explanation to the dramatic changes in the ways in which war and terror are covered by Western media. It argues that viewers around the globe follow violent events, literally and metaphorically, on "wide" and "flat" screens, in "high-definition". The "wide-screen" means that at present the screen is wide enough to include new actors - terrorists, 'enemy' leaders, ordinary people in a range of roles, and journalists in the field - who have gained status of the kind that in the past was exclusive to editors, army generals and governmental actors. The "high-definition" metaphor means that the eye of the camera closes in on both traditional and new actors, probing their emotions, experiences and beliefs in ways that were irrelevant in past conflicts. The "flat-screen" metaphor stands for the consequences of the two former phenomena, leading to a loss of the hierarchy of the meanings of war. Paradoxically, the better the quality of viewing, the less the understanding of what we see. Through these metaphors, Kampf and Liebes systematically analyse changes in the practices, technologies, infrastructures and external institutional relationships of journalism"--

AbstractThis article discusses two aspects that are important for understanding the relationship between Western news media and terrorism: the changing representation of terrorists and terrorist attacks in the media and, with it, the changing definition of terrorism. By calling attention to evolving news media practices in times of terrorism, I argue that advanced communication technologies and the emergence of global media ecology since the 1990s has made terrorism more visible in both national and international media landscapes. One result is that the more the news media expose terrorism to global audiences via the "front door," the more controversial the use of the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" become in social, political, and scholarly discourses. The paper addresses the evolving journalistic practices and their consequences as documented in previous studies on media reporting of terrorism in several national contexts, mostly the UK, the United States, and Israel.

The aim of this paper is to examine the evolving Israeli discourse of recognition of the Palestinian people and their suffering as a case study for theorizing the role of recognition statements in peace processes. Three stages of recognition are characterized and applied in order to understand the changing attitudes of Israeli officials toward the Palestinians: (1) acknowledgment of a political entity; (2) acknowledgment of their suffering; (3) acknowledgment of responsibility for their suffering. An analysis of Israeli officials' statements allows one to track the evolving recognition of one side in a conflict vis-à-vis the suffering of the other. Further, analysis of the response in Israel, in Palestinian territories and in the Arab world to what is considered the most far-reaching recognition statement made by an Israeli official enables us better to understand the role of such statements in promoting reconciliation.

Abstract
This article argues that interpersonal commitment is statespersons' most highly coveted aim, the greatest benefit that interpersonal relations can yield in diplomacy. Accordingly, statespersons employ a range of relational practices in encounters with counterparts, seeking to create and harness commitment that will advance professional aims. We argue that statespersons can follow one of two paths to generate commitment: (1) creating feelings of gratitude and providing help that makes a counterpart feel indebted; or (2) cultivating friendly relations. Both demand the successful implementation of relational practices. On the basis of thirty semistructured interviews with past and present senior Israeli statespersons and an analysis of fifteen autobiographies written by senior Israeli diplomats and political figures, we demonstrate to what extent statespersons acknowledge the importance of interpersonal commitment and its ramifications; identify the relational practices that statespersons employ to elicit commitment from a counterpart; and discuss the conditions that facilitate the emergence of such a commitment. We conclude by discussing the differences between thin and thick interpersonal commitments and underlining the importance of interpersonal relations in diplomacy.

Abstract
Despite the potential of amicable messages to transform the course of conflicts, studies have neglected the reasons target audiences accept or reject such messages. This study examines the evaluation of amicable messages conveyed by three groups of leaders perceived as "controversial" in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict from the Israeli perspective: Palestinian, Middle Eastern, and Western. A content analysis of comments (N = 1,885) to news reports about amicable messages delivered by leaders of the three groups showed that the use of Israeli commenters in source-, receiver-, and message-related argument vary when commenting to amicable messages from different leaders. We discuss potential explanations for these distinct patterns and how leaders aiming to appease foreign audiences can formulate effective amicable messages.

Abstract
While most international relations (IR) scholars tend to minimize the effect of relations between statespersons on foreign policy, this article argues that interpersonal relationships have more weight than the literature suggests. On the basis of twenty-one interviews conducted with senior Israeli statespersons, we propose a two-level model-linking positive interaction between statespersons and actual consequences at the state level. At the personal level, positive interactions can create receptiveness, build trust, facilitate accessibility and availability, and advance personal commitment. Translating these outcomes into consequences at the state level is mediated either by persuasion or by commitment. If persuasion is effective or there exists a high level of personal commitment, statespersons are more likely to succeed in mobilizing international support, removing obstacles to agreements, gathering sensitive information, and diffusing interstate tension. We conclude by discussing the limitations and advantages of good personal relations between statespersons and their implications for IR practice and theory.

While most international relations (IR) scholars tend to minimize the effect of relations between statespersons on foreign policy, this article argues that interpersonal relationships have more weight than the literature suggests. On the basis of twenty-one interviews conducted with senior Israeli statespersons, we propose a two-level model-linking positive interaction between statespersons and actual consequences at the state level. At the personal level, positive interactions can create receptiveness, build trust, facilitate accessibility and availability, and advance personal commitment. Translating these outcomes into consequences at the state level is mediated either by persuasion or by commitment. If persuasion is effective or there exists a high level of personal commitment, statespersons are more likely to succeed in mobilizing international support, removing obstacles to agreements, gathering sensitive information, and diffusing interstate tension. We conclude by discussing the limitations and advantages of good personal relations between statespersons and their implications for IR practice and theory.

International Relations scholars and practitioners commonly agree that relationships in world politics are managed impersonally. Personal connections between agents of states are perceived as having only little impact on foreign policy of states. The current article challenges this impersonal ethos, suggesting that personal relationships play an important role in conducting, and thus understanding, interstate relations. Interviews conducted with 21 senior Israeli officials concerning mundane professional practices reveal three elements that are essential for successful statecraft: acknowledging the power of interpersonal relations; substantive knowledge of counterparts; and the excellent communicative competencies needed to realize the potential of personal connections. We argue that statespersons' behavior can be located on an impersonal-interpersonal continuum. Furthermore, we suggest explanations for deviations from the impersonal ethos and discuss the role of interpersonal practices in managing interstate relations. At the very least, the personal aspect should be taken into consideration when examining foreign policy. However, personal relations may have a highly significant impact on interstate interactions, thus requiring a revision of the current paradigm in IR, which marginalizes the personal aspect.

International Relations scholars and practitioners commonly agree that relationships in world politics are managed impersonally. Personal connections between agents of states are perceived as having only little impact on foreign policy of states. The current article challenges this impersonal ethos, suggesting that personal relationships play an important role in conducting, and thus understanding, interstate relations. Interviews conducted with 21 senior Israeli officials concerning mundane professional practices reveal three elements that are essential for successful statecraft: acknowledging the power of interpersonal relations; substantive knowledge of counterparts; and the excellent communicative competencies needed to realize the potential of personal connections. We argue that statespersons' behavior can be located on an impersonal-interpersonal continuum. Furthermore, we suggest explanations for deviations from the impersonal ethos and discuss the role of interpersonal practices in managing interstate relations. At the very least, the personal aspect should be taken into consideration when examining foreign policy. However, personal relations may have a highly significant impact on interstate interactions, thus requiring a revision of the current paradigm in IR, which marginalizes the personal aspect.

Demands for apology are a prominent rhetorical means for pointing out transgressions in contemporary world politics. They transform 'seen but unnoticed' conduct into 'seen and noticed' transgression and attach a price tag to the restoration of damaged relations. Nevertheless, compared to the widely discussed practice of apologising, demands for apologies have received scant scholarly attention. In this article we adopt an actor-oriented perspective in order to situate the speech act of demanding an apology within the delicate management of interstate relations. In-depth content analysis of 57 cases of demands made by various state actors in a variety of diplomatic contexts between 1999 and 2019 let us delineate the discursive construction of transgressions, the normative scripts that inform acts of demands, the types of sought-after remedies, and their discursive consequences. We conclude by discussing the normative diplomatic scripts that guide demands for apology and how these speech acts reconfigure power relations in international politics.

Abstract
Communicating admiration and appreciation in public discourse are two important tasks for political actors who wish to secure relationships and advance models for civic behavior. Our goal in this study is to understand how political actors signal their desire to please addressees and advance political sociability by way of manifesting positive judgment towards others. On the basis of 241 utterances praising and complimenting others' words and deeds, we identify the topics, patterns, and functions of these speech acts and the processes and struggles they evoke in Israeli public discourse. We conclude by discussing the role of positive evaluations in demarcating the boundaries of proper conduct in political communities and the ways the distinctive logic of politics is integrated with specific cultural speaking styles in influencing how members of the Israeli political community signal their appreciation and affect for other members' skills, performances, and personalities.

This study examines the conditions under which public manifestation of discontent can lead to changes in the broadcasting of offensive media content. Our analysis is based on ethnographic research within the ombudsman at a regulatory institution in Israel, on content analysis of 2142 complaints regarding perceived inappropriate broadcasted content between the years 2005 and 2010, and on an examination of public discourse surrounding controversial programs in Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Our analysis indicates that successful complaints share three conditions that collectively lead media organizations to amend broadcasted contents: the complaints name a socially sensitive identity within a specific broadcasting culture, the complaints are numerous and represent diversified public sectors, and the complaints are accompanied by a heated public debate around the perceived offence. We elaborate on each of these conditions and conclude by discussing the effectiveness of public complaints as a discursive device in participatory culture.

Since the beginning of the 1990s, there has been growing academic interest in the speech act of apology. Both the nature of apologetic communicative processes and the potential of apologies to promote reconciliation remain, however, under debate. The aim of this article is to map common types of rituals found in what is termed 'the age of apology', to identify the processual and structural characteristics of these rituals, and to understand their contribution to restoring relations in the global arena. The analysis yields three types of rituals of apology: purification – that is, asymmetrical rituals in which the offender issues an apology in order to purify his or her dismal past but does not necessarily need the approval of an offended party; humiliation – that is, asymmetrical rituals in which the offended party forces the offender to participate in a degradation ritual as a condition for closure; and settlement – that is, symmetrical rituals in which both sides strive to restore relations. The theoretical and practical implications of these rituals are discussed.