Amicable messages delivered in a conflict may have a positive effect on recipients’ willingness to reconcile. Although studies have examined their effect, we still lack understanding on what grounds amicable messages are accepted or rejected. This study identifies the interpretative repertoires Israeli news commenters apply to make sense of amicable messages delivered unexpectedly by foreign opponent leaders, and demonstrates how they are employed for drawing epistemic boundaries between members of an interpretative community. Analysis of 2,037 comments to reported messages toward Israel in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict reveals 11 evaluative categories employed by Israeli commenters within two interpretative repertoires: suspicion and opportunity. Most commenters rejected the messages on grounds of the source’s lack of credibility. A minority of commenters accepted the messages, focusing on wishful outcomes and in-group policies. The conclusion discusses the importance of studying interpretative repertoires and their applicability to other communities involved in conflicts.
AugoustinosM.EveryD. (2007). The language of “race” and prejudice: A discourse of denial, reason, and liberal-practical politics. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(2), 123-141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X07300075
2.
AugoustinosM.HastieB.WrightM. (2011). Apologizing for historical injustice: Emotion, truth and identity in political discourse. Discourse & Society, 22(5), 507-531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511405573
3.
BalmasM. (2019). National leaders’ personality cues and Americans’ attitudes toward their countries. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 31(4), 694-713. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edy021
4.
Bar-TalD. (2009). Reconciliation as a foundation of culture of peace. In De RiveraJ. (Ed.), Handbook on building cultures of peace (pp. 363-377). Springer.
5.
BeneM. (2017). Sharing is caring! Investigating viral posts on politicians’ Facebook pages during the 2014 general election campaign in Hungary. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14(4), 387-402. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2017.1367348
6.
BilligM. (1988). Methodology and scholarship in understanding ideological explanation. In AntakiC. (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 199-215). Sage.
7.
BronsteinI.NelsonN.LivnatZ.Ben-AriR. (2012). Rapport in negotiation: The contribution of the verbal channel. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 56(6), 1089-1115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002712448913
8.
BurgoonJ. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1-2), 30-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X93121003
ChiltonP.LakoffG. (2005). Foreign policy by metaphor. In SchäffnerC.WendenL. A. (Eds.), Language and peace (pp. 61-84). Routledge.
13.
Cohen-ChenS.HalperinE.PoratR.Bar-TalD. (2014). The differential effects of hope and fear on information processing in intractable conflict. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 2(1), 11-30. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v2i1.230
14.
DascalM.KatrielT. (1981). Digressions: a study in conversational coherence. In: PetöfiJ. (Ed.), Text vs Sentence continued (Vol. 29, pp. 76-95). Helmut Buske Verlag.
15.
Dori-HacohenG. (2016). Tokbek [Talk-back], Israeli speech economy, and other non-deliberative terms for political talk. In CarbaughD. (Ed.), The handbook of communication in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 299-311). Routledge.
16.
Dori-HacohenG.ShavitN. (2013). The cultural meanings of Israeli tokbek (talk-back online commenting) and their relevance to the online democratic public sphere. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 6(4), 361-379. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2013.060649
DragojlovicN. I. (2013). Leaders without borders: Familiarity as a moderator of transnational source cue effects. Political Communication, 30(2), 297-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.737421
19.
FearonJ. D. (1997). Signaling foreign policy interests: Tying hands versus sinking costs. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(1), 68-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002797041001004
Gavriely-NuriD. (2015). Israeli peace discourse: A cultural approach to CDA. John Benjamins.
23.
GayerC. C.LandmanS.HalperinE.Bar-TalD. (2009). Overcoming psychological barriers to peaceful conflict resolution: The role of arguments about losses. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53(6), 951-975. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002709346257
24.
GibsonS. (2009). The effortful citizen: Discursive social psychology and welfare reform. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(6), 393-410. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1003
25.
GilesD. C. (2016). Observing real-world groups in the virtual field: The analysis of online discussion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(3), 484-498. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12139
26.
GoddardS. E. (2015). The rhetoric of appeasement: Hitler’s legitimation and British foreign policy, 1938–39. Security Studies, 24(1), 95-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2015.1001216
27.
GoffmanE. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Pantheon.
28.
GolanG. J.YangS. (2013). Diplomat in chief? Assessing the influence of presidential evaluations on public diplomacy outcomes among foreign publics. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(9), 1277-1292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213487735
29.
GoldsmithB. E.HoriuchiY. (2009). Spinning the globe? US public diplomacy and foreign public opinion. Journal of Politics, 71(3), 863-875. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609090768
30.
Gomes de MatosF. (2011). Language, peace, and conflict resolution. In DeutschM.ColemanP. T.MarcusE. C. (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 182-202). John Wiley.
31.
HallT.Yarhi-MiloK. (2012). The personal touch: Leaders’ impressions, costly signaling, and assessments of sincerity in international affairs. International Studies Quarterly, 56(3), 560-573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2012.00731.x
32.
HalperinE.Bar-TalD. (2011). Socio-psychological barriers to peace making: An empirical examination within the Israeli Jewish society. Journal of Peace Research, 48(5), 637-651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343311412642
33.
HoffmannJ.HawkinsV. (Eds.). (2015). Communication and peace: Mapping an emerging field. Routledge.
KampfZ. (2016b). Rhetorical Bypasses: Connecting with the hearts and minds of people on the opponent’s side. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 11(2), 149-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2016.1181639
37.
KampfZ.AldarL.DanzigerR.SchreiberM. (2019). The pragmatics of amicable interstate communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 16(2), 123-151. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2019-0007
38.
KampfZ.DanzigerR. (2019). “You dribble faster than Messi and jump higher than Jordan”: The art of complimenting and praising in political discourse. Journal of Politeness Research, 15(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2016-0044
39.
KampfZ.DavidY. (2019). Too good to be true: The effect of conciliatory message design on compromising attitudes in intractable conflicts. Discourse & Society, 30(3), 264-286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926519828030
KatrielT. (1986). Talking straight: Dugri speech in Israeli sabra culture. Cambridge University Press.
42.
KatrielT. (2004). Dialogic moments: From soul talks to talk radio in Israeli culture. Wayne State University Press.
43.
KohnA.NeigerM. (2007). To talk and talkback: Analyzing the rhetoric of talkbacks in online journalism. In AltshulerT. (Ed.), Journalism dot com: On-line newspapers in Israel (pp. 321-350). The Israeli Democratic Institute and Ben-Gurion University (in Hebrew).
44.
KudishS.Cohen-ChenS.HalperinE. (2015). Increasing support for concession-making in intractable conflicts: The role of conflict uniqueness. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 21(2), 248-263. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000074
45.
LamontM. (1992). Money, morals, and manners: The culture of the French and the American upper-middle class. University of Chicago Press.
46.
LamontM.ThévenotL. (2000). Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: Repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States. Cambridge University Press.
47.
LarsonD. W. (1997). Trust and missed opportunities in international relations. Political Psychology, 18(3), 701-734. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00075
48.
MaozI. (2012). Threats versus promises: How the framing of concession appeals in news coverage affects support for compromise. International Journal of Communication, 6, 2280-2300.
49.
MaozI.EllisD. G. (2008). Intergroup communication as a predictor of Jewish-Israeli agreement with integrative solutions to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: The mediating effects of out-group trust and guilt. Journal of Communication, 58(3), 490-507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00396.x
50.
MaozI.McCauleyC. (2009). Threat perceptions and feelings as predictors of Jewish-Israeli support for compromise with Palestinians. Journal of Peace Research, 46(4), 525-539. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343309334613
51.
MaozI.WardA.KatzM.RossL. (2002). Reactive devaluation of an “Israeli” vs. “Palestinian” peace proposal. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 46(4), 515-546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002702046004003
52.
MartinJ. R. (2004). Positive discourse analysis: Solidarity and change. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 49(1), 179-200.
53.
MattesM.WeeksJ. L. (2019). Hawks, doves, and peace: An experimental approach. American Journal of Political Science, 63(1), 53-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12392
54.
MitchellC. (2000). Gestures of conciliation: Factors contributing to successful olive-branches. St. Martin’s Press.
55.
MondakJ. J. (1993). Source cues and policy approval: The cognitive dynamics of public support for the Reagan agenda. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 186-212. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2111529
56.
NadlerA.LiviatanI. (2006). Intergroup reconciliation: Effects of adversary’s expressions of empathy, responsibility, and recipients’ trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(4), 459-470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205276431
57.
PotterJ.WetherellM. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. Sage.
58.
PotterJ.WetherellM. (1995). Natural order: Why social psychologists should study (a constructed version of) natural language, and why they have not done so. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14(1-2), 216-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X95141012
59.
RumleyG.TibonA. (2017). The last Palestinian: The rise and reign of Mahmoud Abbas. Prometheus Books.
60.
SchäffnerC.WendenL. A. (2005). Language and peace. Routledge.
SchultzK. A. (2005). The politics of risking peace: Do hawks or doves deliver the olive branch?International Organization, 59(1), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818305050071
63.
SearleJ. (2010). Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. Oxford University Press.
64.
SigelmanL. (1990). Disarming the opposition: The president, the public, and the INF treaty. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54(1), 37-47. https://doi.org/10.1086/269182
65.
SigelmanL.SigelmanC. K. (1986). Shattered expectations: Public responses to “out-of-character” presidential actions. Political Behavior, 8(3), 262-286.
66.
SoetendorpB. (2002). The EU’s involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process: The building of a visible international identity. European Foreign Affairs Review, 7(2), 283-295. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016379027926
67.
SonnevendJ. (2019). Charm offensive: Mediatized country image transformations in international relations. Information, Communication & Society, 22(5), 695-701. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1568516
68.
StraussA.CorbinJ. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and technique (2nd ed.). Sage.
69.
VerkuytenM. (1998). Attitudes in public discourse: Speakers’ own orientations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17(3), 302-322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X9801700302
70.
WeizmanE. (2015). Irony in and through follow-ups: Talk and meta-talk in online commenting. In FetzerA.WeizmanE.BerlinL. N. (Eds.), The dynamics of political discourse: Forms and functions of follow-ups (pp. 173-194). John Benjamins.
71.
WeizmanE.Dori-HacohenG. (2017). On-line commenting on opinion editorials: A cross-cultural examination of face work in The Washington Post (USA) and NRG (Israel). Discourse, Context & Media, 19, 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.02.001
72.
WetherellM. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoire: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society, 9(3), 387-412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926598009003005
73.
WetherellM.PotterJ. (1988). Discourse analysis and the identification of interpretative repertoires. In AntakiC. (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook for methods (pp. 168-183). Sage.
74.
WigginsS.PotterJ. (2008). Discursive psychology. In WilligC.RogersW. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (1st ed., pp. 73-90). Sage.
75.
WilsonD.SperberD. (2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge University Press.
76.
WrightS.StreetJ. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society, 9(5), 849-869. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807081230
77.
Yuchtman-YaarE.AlkalayY. (2016). The role of trust in the resolution of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. In IlaiA.Bar-TalD. (Eds.), The role of trust in conflict resolution (pp. 149-167). Springer.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
