The issue of Iran and its stated intent to remove Israels existence from the pages of history has

been an issue warranting increased coverage from Israeli media outlets since early 2003, when Iranian PM Ahmedinajad(need new intro)In response to this irratic statement the Netanyahu govt initiated an equally powerful set of political statements, symbols and and discourse concerning the imminence of an Iranian nuclear threat. Comprehending this unique discourse as well as, the power-dynamics which have underlied its ability to take route within Israels political culture, requires an intensified focus on the power of language and the creation of a securitizing narrative, as defined through the theoretical lens of critical security studies. The application of such a theoretical orientation allows for two important conclusions to emerge. Firstly, that more broadly the Netanyahu administration has actively constructed the borders of a security narrative which situates Iran within the realm of an imminent material and ideological threat to Israels existence . Secondly, that this narrative has created a split in Israeli civil society, in recieving partial legitimation through some of Israels largest and most widely read news publications, such as the Jerusalem Post, Yedioth Achronot(Ynet) and Irutz Sheva, yet simultaneously provoking widespread opposition and rejection from various academics, politicians and media . This MRP will look to explore why the Israeli governments statements, reactions and policies concerning the topic of an imminent Iranian nuclear threat, have provoked such a high and open level of criticism from such actors. The analysis argues that by identifying an escalation in the type of discourse being espoused by the Netanyahu government, between the years 2011-13, as well as the varying challenges raised against it within Israel, it becomes increasing clear that the issue of Iran has developed three major streams of communication or discourse. The first stream is the internal discussion within the state of Israel, the second stream is the outward or international discussion between Israel and the rest of the international community, and the third stream is the critical _____________ discussion within the larger Jewish community abroad. This analysis will ultimately suggest that through focusing on the first stream and, in turn, the language within Israeli civil society adamant on rejecting Netanyahus Iranian threat narrative it becomes increasingly clear that there rests a demand to reject and dispel the dominant set of shared meanings and symbols which rest behind its legitimacy. (Didnt know if I should put this is?) Increased recognition of a set of perspectives which rest within the first stream of communication, proposed above, and its uniqueness, as an open form of criticism and condemnation towards the government and its statements, allows for a clear understanding of how the defiance of such a discourse could lead to substantial political change. Additional questions I will attempt to answer (indirectly through analysis) 1) Critical Discourse Studies The link between discourse, framing and public understanding of an issue

Has the media or government framed the issue of Iranian nuclear power in a way that necessitates a restricted set of perceptions concerning its (framing as a necessary part of discourse) How can recognizing language / the power of language and ideas lead to increased insight into Israeli political culture /media with regards to this issue Identifying & Applying the three streams : first stream is the internal discussion within the state of Israel, the second stream is the outward or international discussion between Israel and the rest of the international community, and the third stream is the critical _____________ discussion within the larger Jewish community abroad

2) IR theory Why is social constructivism / critical security studies specifically important in this MRP/for understanding this issue?

Short Answer : B/c it understands ecurity as a social construction ; it is a constructed phenomenon ; constructed by individuals/groups with power ; with the construction of what security means in Israel according to Netanyahu has come a set of symbols images and meanings which place Iran into the realm of being an imminent threat I am not evaluating how correct or incorrect this is but simply identifying its presence and arguing that it promotes/constricts ways of understanding security Because it helps make clear how a given construction of what security means can be cemented into general public knwoledge of a problem / or be performative(i.e. lead individual /constrain individual action) DEFINITIONS OF SECURITY AND THREAT ARE CONTESTABLE CONSIDERABLE IDEOLOGICAL LABOUR IS REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT PARTICCULAR SECURITY DISCOURSE BECOME AND REMAIN DOMINANT ; POLIT ELITES AND OTHER ACTORS EXERCISE SUCH (I.E. Israel Netanyahu govt) Why is the concept of securitization specifically important for this MRP/understanding this issue? 3) Ressistance to narrative First stream - the internal discussion within the state of Israel Open and widespread opposition in the context of Israeli civil society

Argument that it is unique for Israels ex-heads of its internal security community to defy the govt so adamantly and openly What does this mean? Populations looking to invite a new discourse Why this trend defies past trends in communication streams between the government, media and civil society? Whether the major trend in defiance of the governments political narrative and discourse on Iran from important actors in Israeli civil society, can lead to political change?

Argument : Link between discourse and action=way one perceives a problem/the fact that it is a problem at all(problemitization = securitization or the construction of something as a threat.

Implications : 1) Original part of this MRP : Understanding that this issue is one of language/discourse provokes the need for a new dominant set of shared meanings symbols etc a. Dispelling this set of shared meanings and symbols in favor of a new discourse

b. developing a relevant analytical framework for discourse is a key first step in the process of constructing alternative ways forward, including xy z( A different way of putting it would be to say there is a discourse that has emerged in Israeli media & government statements/ analysis understanding this discourse is a key first step in the process of constructing alternative ways forward, including xy z) i. i.e. Israel loves Iran, ii. i.e. The implications of discourse analysis for foreign policy decision making for conflict resolution

of political rhetoric between the years 2011-13 hold a great deal of relevance given the irrefutable link between discourse and eventual decision making or action, How the pratice and use of a specific type of discourse allows for the creation of perceptions about a given social situationHas been defied by central political figures as well as significant actors within Israels security intelligence community

Why is it dangerousconnection between discourse and action/ decision-making (that would be the original thought part of your owrk