A Cognitive Analysis of The Israeli Narratives of Victimization in Gaza wars
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31185/wjfh.Vol21.Iss1/Pt1.756Keywords:
Conceptual Metaphor Theory, contextual factor , Victimization Narrative , Israeli-Hamas Conflict, Gaza Wars.Abstract
Victimization narratives are a significant factor in the Gaza war. Israel, with all
military power, shows itself as a victim in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Fake Stories,
whether intentionally created or inadvertently spread, can significantly impact
international public opinion. It affects policy decisions, influences public support, and
contributes to the perpetuation of the conflict. The researcher employs a cognitive
model in a mixed method to analyze ten Israeli narratives that were presented in media
reports, TV stations, and social platforms during the period from 6 June 2017 to 15
February 2024. Recognizing the cognitive semantics of victimization narratives helps
observers determine reporters' goals and reduces potential adverse effects. The use of
qualitative and quantitative analysis has found that the Israeli victimization narrative
has specific aspects of cognitive semantics following Lakoff & Johnson's conceptual
metaphor theory (1980), Kövecses (2020). It also has found that Israel gained different
goals throughout the victimization narratives; the most frequent goals are to shape
public opinion, attain emotional response, justify the war against Gaza, Enhance
Jewish identity, marginalize Palestine, and prejudice Hamas
Downloads
References
References
Al-Ghezzey, K. H. A., & Rashid, A. L. A. M. (2023). A Semiotic Study of Iraqiʼs Election Propaganda Photos. مجلّة القادسية في الآداب والعلوم التربوية, 23(4= ج (3)), 433-453.
Aliwy, H., & Al-Husseini, M. (2022). Pragmatic Adaptation of Doctors’ Talks in the Medical TV Show" The Doctors. Journal of College of Education, 50, 1.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31185/eduj.Vol50.Iss1.3453
Alzamili, N., & Alghezzy, K. H. A. (2022). A Cognitive Linguistic Study of Metaphor in some selected Slogans Chanted During 25th Tishreen protest in Iraq 2019. Journal of Education College Wasit University, 1(47), 405-414.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31185/eduj.Vol47.Iss1.2383
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and brain sciences, 22(4), 577-660.
Croft. W. and Cruse, D.A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University
Cruse, A. (2006). A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh University Press.
Diller, S. (1971). The expectations component of the term structure. In Essays on Interest Rates, Volume 2 (pp. 413-433). NBER.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford University Press, USA.
Kövecses, Z. (2017). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive linguistics, 28(2), 321-347.
Kövecses, Z. (2020). Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. In Extended Conceptual Metaphor Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. The University of Chicago Press
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. University of Chicago Press.
Potapenko, S. I.. (2013). Introducing Cognitive Linguistics : [manual for students]. Nizhyn
Shank, G. (2002). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach. Merril Prentice Hall
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring systems (Vol. 1). MIT pres University. Publishing House. – 140 p. ISBN 978-617-527-094-3
Williams, C. (2011). Research methods. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 5 (3), 9-17. Retrieved from
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 م.م. ساره علي محمد ، أ.د خالدة حاشوش عداي الغزي

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.