So what do you think? Whose rights should be upheld here? How does each side use language to legitimise what they are doing?
Because this article is from a Turkish newspaper it is from a Turkish point of view this is shown through the title of the article and the blame is being put on the Israel people "Israel Will Not Apologize to Turkey". When the Turkish are talking about the Israels harsh words have been used such as demanded making them seem forceful,violent and in the wrong. When describing the Turkish words have been used such as talk and other words to make a calm mood making the Turkish seem controled and inocent. Quotes have been used form either side to further show the story in a way that shows the story but in a way that keeps the Turkish public happy as they are thinking that they are right. In the Israel newpaper article explains the situation with trying to avoid the people responsible and focusing on the people injured in the event. The blame is very brief in the title and uses genrelised term to focus the blame away from themselves trying to get the public on their side. Each article uses specific writing techniwues and witholdes information to make sure their view point is put foward and they put the view point to please the public.
Nice clear analysis of the language used… are you awayed by either side's approach?
I think that the Turkish people were correct in demanding an apology however especially in the second site, their demand was portrayed in a negative way and it illegitimated their request for the Israeli apology. “They are demanding an apology” Here, the word demanding gives the sentence negative connotations and instead of it seeming like its the right thing to do; (apologize) the Turkish seem to be greedy and out of order. “Since the attack took place, Turkey has demanded an apology.” Here, there is a double meaning because it can be stating that “Because the attack took place, Turkey has…” or it can be commenting on the fact that “Ever since the attack took place, Turkey has…” This makes me feel as though perhaps, despite the tragedy, the media's portrayal suggests that Israel is within their rights morally, not go give Turkey an apology. I disagree but I can see how such a dispute can come about. In the first article it is portrayed that Turkey's demand was completely feasible. “This is yet another testimony that human rights activists who joined the flotilla out of humanitarian considerations took no part in the violent confrontation initiated by IHH.” The choice of the word testimony is held in high regard religiously and also academically therefore this statement is made more truthful by its inclusion and the public side with Turkey after reading this article.
Some insightful comments here, too. nice work.
Something that I noticed was that in the Turkish newspaper article they stated the facts and didnt use biased language, this could be because they aren't in the wrong, as it was the Israelis fault for the death of their people and all they want to do is ask for an apology. However in the Israeli newspaper they used very biased languge such as violent, and calling the turkish victums "probably Islamist by nature" to try and persuade people that they are not in the wrong, and an apology is not necessary as they killed bad people and not good people. I think that the Israelis are in the wrong and should apologise to the Turkish people as there is no real substance to their argument, and their use of forceful language doesn't improve their case. They are just making assumptions without any factual proof, such as calling them "Radical Islamists".
This use of 'islamist' is really interesting because it taps into a whole discourse of conversation about islamists and terror etc… What do you think the intended function of labelling the flotilla activists as 'Islamists' is? What do you think the Israeli writers are hoping to make readers feel about these people?
I believe there is a definate change in the language used and the context it is used in between the two articles on the Gaza Flotilla. The two websites differed in that they each represented their own country, Israel and Turkey. Turkey was the country demanding the apology for their 9 dead on the Flotilla, whilst Israel was refusing or avoiding an apology by justifying their actions in saying that the deceased Turkish people were "most probably Islamist by nature" "with about half of them having expressed an intention to die as shaheeds." The language and expression used to describe this implies that the Israel's were not in the wrong. My opinion is that the Israeli's were in fact in the wrong, and are justifying their wrong-doing with invalid reasoning.
You have identified some key language items.. How might the use of the word "Islamist" help to justify the Israeli position?
Because the article is from a Turkish perspective, they make it seem as though it is definitely Israels fault – “Israel will not apologize to Turkey”. The Turkish perspective seems very violent and aggressive towards Israel. However, I think they have a right to feel this way and demand an apology, but the article makes them seem too aggressive. This just shows how the media can blow things out of proportion and exaggerate things, using words like ‘demand’ which has a severely negative connotation.
Which words make the Turkish perspective seem aggressive? are these words written by Turks or Israelis?
I agree with Maddy. I believe that the Turkish people were right to demand an apology however perhaps they went around it the wrong way. When someone has to demand something, does that necessarily mean that they deserve it to begin with? However, because the articles are biased to the parties that they support, this means that we can not get a clear decisive about who is in the right or who is in the wrong. The article shows the aggressive side of Turkey and not the side that makes you want to negotiate with them. The language used gives a negative feeling for what the wish to achieve and the word 'demanding' much like Maddy has highlighted shows a negative connotation. However, in saying this I think that by not apologising to Turkey, Israel is just prolonging the stupidity that is this argument. However, this is just my opinion given to me via this article. If i perhaps knew the entire story of both parties, my opinion may be different.
It sounds like you would prefer to reserve your opinion until you can get hold of 'unbiased' evidence. Fair enough. But as a historian, often there is only evidence such as this available. How then can you figure out where the 'truth' lies?
I agree with the majority of what has been said. The first article from the Israeli perspective is extremely long and drawn out. It seems as if they are trying to justify themselves. It is often said that when someone is not being completely honest, they try to prove their 'honesty' by given long winded stories. It seems as if they are trying to prove their innocence in the event and explain why they will not apologise, but the article is so long that it seems to actually make it lose its impact. I believe that they should apologise because they were wrong to an extent. The second article from the Turkish perspective is much shorter and more 'to the point' and it states the reasons for why they are demanding an apology (because of the deaths). But similarly to what the others have the said, the way that they are "demanding" an apology seems quite forceful and and quite aggressive. I can imagine why though, because they would be angry about all that has happened. I think that the Israeli should apologise, but I do not think that the Turkish should have been so forceful with their demand.
interesting… what do you think the impact would be on the Turkish govt if they were less strong in demanding an apology? Would there be negative consequences for a weaker or more mild stance?