Discourse Analysis

Anita 120710208
Eva Nur Mazidah 120710209
Apriana Bunga S 120710210
Rita Puspitaningrum 120710246
Hendra Bangkit 120710

A. Argumentation : the Evaluation follows from the ‘facts’.

The passage has given several arguments. We find them from each of the paragraph. Here are the arguments and the implicit arguments put in brackets.
• Recently it is seen that Jews’ force of force has intoxicated us. [it has even also been done since 2,000 years ago]
• Jewish population thought that military force could be used to achieve any goal.
• The force before 1967 was used as a last resort and since the Six-Day War, every problem has to be solved with the force [justify the use of force].
• Violent on humanitarian aid shows that what can be done by force has to be handled with a greater force. [Israel has to do it to solve the problem]
• Hamas is not just a terrorist organization [Hamas is a threat to solve whatever the way].
• To solve the problem, Hamas has to make as agreement with Palestinians about the borders [Hamas has to sign the agreement as in the 1967 borders].
• Force can not solve the problem and force is effective as preventive [each side has supporters; if one gives force, another gives a counter force]
• Israel uses the force to survive—self-defense.

Conclusion : If Hamas does not sign the agreement, it will lead to other disasters. Everyone wants peace. [Sign the agreement and Israel will stop its force to Palestinians].

The style of the writer is a bit tricky. At first he shows how Israel has used force to solve problem as if he said that Israel were mean to Palestinians. He then shows that Hamas is not just a terrorist organization. He puts Hamas as the core of the problem in Palestine. He then proposes that ‘Israel’ has to sign the peace agreement with President Mahmoud Abbas. His proposal implicitly shows that Israel has been suffered by Palestinian and Hamas because they do not sign the peace agreement so that there is no other way save justifying the use force to Palestinians and Hamas.

B.The rhetorical figures found in the article “Israeli Force, Adrift on the Sea”:

One hyperbolic of “their” negative action is found the sentences “But Hamas is not just a terrorist. Hams is an idea, a desperate and fanatical idea that grew of the desolation and frustration of many Palestinians.” Those two sentences give a notion that actually Hams is the one responsible for for the force done by Israel. It is also indirectly stated that Hamas is the antagonist actor behind the conflict between Israel and Palestine in Gaza.
The next sentences “No idea has ever been defeated by force—not by siege, not by bombardment, not by being flattened with tank treads, and not by marine commandos. To defeat an idea, ypu have to offer a better idea, a more attractive and acceptable one” indirectly show that it was as if a right thing to defeat Hamas. It was as if meant that Hamas should be defeated, but not by using force. This is a kind of understatement of “our” negative action. The action of defeating Hamas—a desperate and fanatical idea of desolate Palestinians—is justifiable as long as it is not by force.
The 6th paragraph of the article really shows how the writer understates “our” negative action. Again, here he justifies the act of “edging out” Hamas. The act of taking over Palestinian’s land is considered (by the writer) a justifiable independence-action. By putting the conflict only between Gaza and Israel or Hamas and Israel, people are made believe that the act of taking over Gaza is really justifiable. And if seen only as a conflict between hams and Israel, the conflict become less problematic and peopleprobably become less aware that even though the conflict only happens in Gaza, the act of taking over it is actually a kind of colonization.
Another understatement of “our” negative action is on the next sentence “Until Israelis and Palestinians recognize the logical consequences of this simple fact, we will all live in a permanent state of siege—Gaza under an Israel siege, Israel under an international and Arabs siege.” It seems that the condition of Israel being under International and Arabs siege is a mistake of their (Israelis and Palestinians’) not having an agreement about Gaza. The writer even indirectly states that the siege of International worlds and Arabs is a part of Palestinian mistake. There is a sense that Palestinians are mistaken of a permanent siege that the two countries got. Furthermore, he justifies indirectly that the siege of Israelis towards Palestinians is, again, justifiable.
In the last paragraph, we will find another understatement of “our” negative action in the sentence “…that force is effective only as a preventative—to prevent destruction and conquest of Israel…, but instead a means of smashing problems and squashing ideas will lead to disasters, just like one we brought on ourselves in international water, opposite Gaza’s shores”. Firstly, it is stated that the siege is justifiable a s long as it is for preventative purpose/ however, it is not right anymore if it is used for smashing problems and squashing ideas. And instead of mentioning the impact of the Israeli force towards Palestinians (how many people died, how many schools, mosques, and houses were broken down and burnt up, how much physical and psychological pains they suffered), he mentions the impact of the force toward the Israelis themselves. He says that it was Israelis who got the problems of the force they’ve done. He does not even blame Israelis for having caused physical and psychological damage towards Palestinians. He only states that Israeli force should be blamed because it only gives more disasters to Israelis themselves in international world. He does not even show guilt or apology for Palestinians.
C. Lexical Style
There are some word choices which have implied meaning whether if it is positive or negative evaluation, such as:
• “force”
It gas implied meaning “war”. It has positive implied meaning instead of the use of “war”. Te use of “war” has greater negative sense than “force” one.
• “to a man with a big hammer, says the proverb, every problem looks like a nail”
This sentence has negative implied meaning. It means that Israeli is symbolized as a man who has a big hammer, then he will destroy everything related to Palestine, associated as a nail. A nail which is looked very small for a big hammer.
• “frustration”
It has negative implied meaning. This word is refered commonly to the human psychological condition. I this case, the implied meaning explains that Palestine is disappointed and anger by what actually Israeli done to them.
• “negotiation”
It has negative implied meaning, instead of “agreement”. It is used commonly in the trade field. In contrast, “agreement” has better sense in this discourse.


D. Story Telling: telling above negative events as a personally experienced; giving plausible details above negative features of the events.

In the case of Israel and Hamas, in fact Israel used the power to defeat or destroy Hamas. The writer assumes that force cannot be used to fight against Hamas because Hamas is an idea which only can be defeat by the better or a more attractive idea. In other words, force or war which was done by Israel to defeat Hamas is not a good solution to solve the problem. It only makes the raising problem between Israel and Hamas. In the text above, we can see that the writer is not a Palestinian by the sentence: “ We are not alone in Jerussalem and the Palestinian are not alone in Jerussalem”. But here, he doesn’t agree with the Israel’s way to solve the problems by fighting against Hamas in Palestina. The best solution as the writer states is by doing an agreement between both sides ( Israel and Hamas), not by forcing, bombardment, being flattened with tank treads.