POWER AND LEGITIMACY IN U.S. DIPLOMATIC DISCOURSE: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF STATE DEPARTMENT BRIEFINGS ON THE PALESTINE-ISRAEL CONFLICT

Abstract

The media coverage on the Palestine-Israel conflict has widely been studied for ideological bias, but the official discourse of powerful state institutions, specifically the U.S. State Department, remains a significantly under-investigated site of power and ideology. It is because its briefings shape international understanding and policy. This study through Critical Discourse Analysis, investigates the construction and exercise of power in political discourse. The study is based on the three-dimensional model of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), developed by Norman Fairclough. It explores the discourse on three levels: textual analysis, discursive practice, and social practice to identify the role of political communication as a strategic process of power, legitimacy, and ideological control. This paper is an attempt to explore the use of linguistic choices and discursive strategies to portray the main actors i.e. Israel, Palestine, Hamas, and the United States, and to demonstrate the power structures affecting the official discourse of the foreign policy of the United States. The qualitative research method is followed for the purpose. The paper examined three purposely sampled U.S. State Department press briefings of October 10, 2023; May 20, 2024 and January 15, 2025. The research findings indicated the systematic trends of ideological lexicalization and moral polarization. The findings of the research highlight the systematic patterns of ideological lexicalization and moral polarization across the briefings. It is observed that at discursive level, meanings are shown to be institutionally rather than autonomously produced. Also the meanings are sustained through intertextuality, repetition of official narratives, and controlled interaction with journalists. The analysis reveals that hegemonic Western narratives of security, counterterrorism, and democratic legitimacy are consistently reproduced within broader geopolitical and ideological context. The United States and Israel are predominantly represented as rational, lawful, and stabilizing actors, while Hamas is constructed as a destabilizing and illegitimate threat. The study is significant as it holds practical significance for contexts such as Pakistan, where U.S. foreign policy discourse is frequently reproduced in domestic media coverage and public debate on the Palestine-Israel conflict. It is also significant in investigating the the need for critical engagement with the language of powerful international actors.