Stance and Engagement in Egypt’s Argument before the ICJ on Israeli Practices in Palestinian Territories: A Linguistic Analysis of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers

1) Introduction

            Language is part and parcel of political discourse as it expresses the viewpoints and messages of national and international politicians. It is also “the primary mode of communication in the gentle art of persuasion” (Charteris-Black, 2011, p. 2). Indeed, one vital function of language in political discourse is persuasion of the viewpoints and stances of world leaders and countries on various issues and events. To attain the goal of persuasion, the language employed in different political fronts is carefully chosen and structured. In other words, politicians use linguistic tools, such as word choice, discourse strategies and metadiscourse markers, as persuasive devices that help convince an audience of specific ideologies or stances, adopt a certain viewpoint, or take a particular action.

            The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most important events that has caught international attention due to its humanitarian, geographical and diplomatic implications. The latest ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian militant group, Hamas, which is known as the “7 October attack” due to the attacks launched by Hamas against Israel on 7 October, 2023, garnered wide attention from the domestic and global communities. On the world stage, there have been various reactions that reveal disparate views of the conflict. While some countries, such as the U.S., the U.K., France, and Australia, support Israel and assert its right to defend itself, others, such as Russia, Turkey, China, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Syria, Saudi Arabic and Iraq, condemn Israel’s violence against innocent Palestinians. Because of the severe and escalating situation in Gaza, the international community sought to exercise legal pressure on Israel to stop its attacks against the Palestinian people. In this respect, the UN General Assembly requested an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of Palestine and its policies and practices against Palestinians. Representatives from 52 countries gave oral arguments that reveal the different views held by these countries regarding the conflict in the occupied Palestinian territories.

2) Aims of the Study

            International rejection of Israeli practices against civilians in the Gaza Strip has driven some countries to file a complaint against Israel in the ICJ in which representatives of a number of countries, including Egypt, presented oral arguments against Israel’s policies and genocide against Palestinians. One important presentation before the ICJ is the one made by Egypt’s representative, Yasmine Moussa, Legal Counsellor at the Cabinet of Foreign Affairs Minister, as it included various metadiscourse markers that reflect Egypt’s outright rejection of Israel’s policy of killing, displacement, and occupation to persuade the ICJ to assert the sovereignty of Palestine and Palestinians’ right to self-determination, and declare Israeli practices illegal. In this respect, the present study examines the metadiscourse markers employed in the oral argument presented by Yasmine Moussa regarding Israel’s practices in Gaza to express Egypt’s stance on the issue and persuade the international community to force Israel to stop its military operations in the Gaza Strip as they violate international humanitarian law and obligations. Accordingly, it attempts to answer the following research questions to investigate how persuasion is realized:

1- What are the interactional metadiscourse markers used in Yasmine Moussa’s oral argument before the ICJ?

2- What is the frequency of occurrence of interactional metadisocurse markers in the data?

3- What are the functions of the interactional metadiscourse markers used in the argument presented by Egypt’s representative at the ICJ?

3) Data and Methodology

The data of the study consists of the oral argument presented by Egypt’s representative at the ICJ and Legal Advisor in the office of the Foreign Affairs Minister, Yasmine Moussa, before the ICJ in the public sitting held on 21 February, 2024 at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the seat of the Court in the Netherlands, regarding the Advisory Proceedings on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the occupied territories of Palestine, including East Jerusalem. The transcript of Moussa’s oral argument was obtained from the website of the International Court of Justice.

To answer the research questions and realize the aims of the study, Hyland’s (2005a) model of interactional metadiscourse markers is employed as it is comprehensive and includes markers relevant to expressing stance and engagement in spoken discourse. To analyze the data, the metadiscourse markers used in the data are identified and categorized based on Hyland’s (2005a) model. The study also adopts the quantitative and qualitative approaches. The quantitative approach is used to identify the frequency of occurrence of interactional metadiscourse markers in the data and their percentages. The qualitative approach is used to investigate the functions of the identified metadiscourse markers, and how they achieve persuasion. Examples of the different interactional metadiscourse markers used in the data are provided and interpreted. In these examples, the markers are underlined.

4) Theoretical Background

4.1) The Israel-Hamas War

            The current ongoing conflict in Gaza started when Hamas, the Palestinian militant group which governs Gaza, launched surprise air, land and sea attacks, known as Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, against Israel on October 7, 2023. At dawn on 7 October, the Hamas-led gunmen fired more than 5000 rockets from the Gaza strip towards Israel, conducted attacks in border areas and attacked military bases. This resulted in killing around 12000 people (Israeli civilians, foreign nationals, and members of the security forces), and seizing hundreds of hostages. According to Hamas, the attacks on October 7 were a necessary step to resist Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, Judaization of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, arrest of Hamas leaders, the blockade of the Gaza strip, and expansion of illegal settlements (Byman & Holtz, 2023; Haboush & Topcu, 2024; Schwarz & Wille, 2024; United Nations Human Rights, 2023). 

            Following the October 7 attacks, Israel started one of the most destructive bombing campaigns and military attacks against the Gaza strip targeting over 2.3 million innocent Palestinian civilians in Gaza with the stated goals of destroying Hamas’ military and governing capabilities and releasing hostages. As a result of Israel’s indiscriminate attacks against Gaza, Israel tightened its unlawful blockade on Gaza, killed and injured thousands of Palestinians most of whom are women, children and older persons. Israeli airstrikes targeted residential buildings, heavily populated areas, hospitals, and a number of UNRWA (United Nations Reliefs and Works Agency) headquarters. Thousands were also missing, trapped under rubble, and forcibly displaced. Israel’s tightened blockade and severe practices resulted in a humanitarian crisis in Gaza as basic necessities were cut off, the infrastructure was destroyed, the healthcare system collapsed, and famine occurred as Israel has continued to prevent humanitarian aids, deliveries and supplies by closing the Rafah border crossing (Gritten, 2024; Hanbali, 2024, United Nations Human Rights, 2023).

            In reaction to the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, there have been many pro-Palestinian demonstrations sweeping around the globe calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The war has also triggered varying international reactions, revealing the disparate views of the countries in the world. While around forty-four countries, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, condemned Hamas, considered the attacks acts of terrorism, and said that Israel has the right to defend itself, others, such as Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, support Palestinians and hold Israel responsible for the attacks. Countries also pushed for a ceasefire, de-escalation, and a return to negotiations and peace talks. On March 25, 2024, the UN Security Council passed resolution 2728 demanding an immediate ceasefire during Ramadan, and the unconditional release of hostages. In addition to diplomatic cutoffs, countries also started taking legal actions to hold Israel accountable for the violence and deadly actions in Gaza. This was initiated by South Africa which filed a genocide case against Israel before the International Court of Justice on December 29, 2023, and requested emergency measures to cease hostilities and force Israel to halt its military operations in the Gaza Strip, stop killing Palestinians, and allow access to international humanitarian aids in Gaza (Basaran, 2023; Corder, 2024; Waldo et al., 2023; United Nations, 2024 a, b). 

            A number of countries decided to follow suit and filed declarations of intervention to join South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the ICJ. These countries are: Nicaragua, Belgium, Ireland, Colombia, Turkey, Libya, Egypt, Maldives, Mexico, Chile, Palestine, and Spain. This case is a step further to attempt to stop the illegal Israeli practices against Palestinians. On December 30, 2022, the UN General Assembly requested the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion regarding the legal consequences arising from Israel’s violation of the Palestinian peoples’ right to self-determination and its 57-year occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. During the hearings, 52 states and three international organizations, namely the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the African Union, participated in the proceedings and presented oral arguments which started on Monday, February 19, 2024 at the Peace Palace in the Hague. 

4.2) Persuasion

            Persuasion is an essential component of human interaction because the different ways language is used are essentially persuasive in nature as various persuasive strategies are employed to change the attitudes of interlocutors or affect the ideologies, beliefs and extent of agreement (Kashiha, 2022). This is indicated by Virtanen and Halmari (2005, p. 3) who hold that persuasion refers to “all linguistic behavior that attempts to either change the thinking or behavior of an audience, or strengthen its beliefs, should the audience already agree”. That persuasion is a purposeful attempt to influence an audience is indicated by O’Keefe (2002, p. 5) who views persuasion as “a successful effort at influencing another mental state through communication in a circumstance in which the persuadee has some measure of freedom”. These definitions imply that the audience or addressee, whether active or inactive, visible or invisible, actual or implied is essential in the process of persuasion because, along with the situational context in which persuasion occurs, it can influence and facilitate the process of persuasion (D. Aljazrawi & Z. Aljazrawi, 2019; Kashiha, 2022).

            The notion of persuasion is closely related to the study of rhetoric introduced by Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, who introduced three persuasive appeals which are considered pillars of persuasion in human interaction. These are: logos, pathos, and ethos. Logos is concerned with the rational or logical appeals, and deals with providing a rationale and evidence for propositions to convince audiences of the arguments made. Pathos refers to emotional or affective appeals, and is concerned with stirring the addressees’ emotions. It is realized by using engagement markers and attitude markers to persuade an audience by appealing to their emotions. Ethos, or credible appeals, deals with presenting an addresser’s stance. In this case, persuasion is achieved by appealing to the speaker’s credibility and authority (D. Aljazrawi & Z. Aljazrawi, 2019; Kashiha, 2022; Mai, 2016).

            To persuade audiences of particular viewpoints, stances or ideologies, speakers or writers use different rhetorical strategies, one of which is metadiscourse (D. Aljazrawi & Z. Aljazrawi, 2019). Hyland (2005b) maintains that metadiscourse is one rhetorical strategy used to realize persuasion as it – metadiscourse – promotes logical appeals by linking ideas and arguments, implies a speaker’s or writer’s credibility by enhancing his/her competence and authority, and signals respect by acknowledging a recipient’s point of view (Hyland, 2005b, Sanford, 2012). Thus, metadiscourse “contributes to the rational, credible, and affective appeals which have characterized persuasive discourse since the time of ancient Greece” (Hyland, 2005b, p. 63).

4.3) Metadiscourse

            The term “metadiscourse” was first coined by the structural linguist Zellig Harris in 1959 to understand language in use as language is not just used to exchange information but also builds a relationship between addressers, their texts and audience as it expresses “the personalities, attitudes and assumptions of those who are communicating” (Hyland, 2005b, p. 3). The concept was further developed at the hands of a number of linguists (Crismore, 1989; Hyland, 2005b; Vande Kopple, 1985; Williams, 1981) who analyzed the linguistic features that convey a position, facilitate communication, build a relationship with audiences, or persuade them of certain views (Albalat-Mascarell, 2023; Lai, 2023; Chen & Li, 2023). In other words, metadiscourse is concerned with how language is used to refer to itself. Thus, it is considered “discourse about discourse” or “talk about talk” (Hyland, 2005b, p. 16).

            Metadiscourse serves a functional purpose in language as it helps speakers/writers express their stance towards propositions, negotiate meaning and engage with audiences or text receivers. (Abusalim et al., 2022; Kashiha, 2022). This is indicated by Hyland (2005b, p. 37) who holds that metadiscourse is “the cover term for the self-reflective expressions used to negotiate interactional meanings in a text, assisting the writer (or speaker) to express a viewpoint and engage with readers”. Thus, metadiscourse helps understand discourse in different contexts by analyzing the devices used to compose well-structured spoken or written texts that engage audiences, and show how speakers and writers take up positions, express their views, and align with their addressees in different contexts. In other words, metadiscourse reflects the various ways addressers interact with addressees through the use of language (Alyousef, 2015; Hyland, 2010, 2017).

            To conduct a metadiscourse analysis of spoken and written texts, a number of metadiscourse models have been proposed. These include: Adel (2006), Crismore (1983, 1989), Crismore et al. (1993), Dafouz (2003, 2008), Hyland (1998, 1999, 2005 a, b), and Vande Kopple (1985, 2002). In Hyland’s (2005a) model, adopted in the present study, metadiscourse falls into two categories: the interactive and the interactional., both of which are key features of communication and are expressed by using a number of markers (Chen & Li, 2023). Interactive metadiscourse is concerned with the flow of information in a text, and shows how discourse is organized coherently and convincingly using various elements so that the audience are directed through the text because their interests, needs and previous knowledge have been accommodated (Chen & Li, 2023; Hyland, 2017; Savijoki, 2023).

Interactional metadiscourse focuses on how speakers and writers conduct interaction by commenting on their messages, and expressing their positions regarding the propositions or issues discussed as well as others who have viewpoints on these issues (Hyland, 2005a, Koutchade, 2021). The interactional dimension of metadiscourse is evaluative and engaging as it shows how addressers evaluate their messages to express their stance towards what is being said as well as how they engage with their addressees (Liukonen, 2018; Paltridge, 2012). Accordingly, interactional metadiscourse is divided into two categories: stance and engagement. Each of these categories is further divided into sub-categories to realize the goal of interactional metadiscourse, namely expressing speakers’ and writers’ views and stances, and engaging audiences in the discourse. Hyland’s (2005a) model of interactional metadiscourse is shown in figure (1).

Figure (1): Hyland’s model of interactional metadiscourse markers

            According to Hyland (2005a), stance is considered “an attitudinal dimension and includes features which refer to the ways writers present themselves and convey their judgements, opinions, and commitments” (p. 176). Stance is divided into four sub-categories, namely hedges, boosters, attitude markers and self-mention. Hedges are words or phrases addressers use to withhold full commitment to a proposition and recognize alternative voices and viewpoints. Hedges allow information to be presented as an opinion rather than a fact, and imply that a proposition is based on reasoning and not certain knowledge. Hedging devices include adverbs (e.g. perhaps, may be, almost), prepositional phrases (e.g. in general, in my view), and epistemic modal verbs (e.g. might, may) (Hyland, 2005a, Liukonen, 2018).

Boosters express the speakers’ and writers’ certainty and complete commitment to different propositions, thereby averting conflicting views by shedding light on shared experiences that make the audience come to the same conclusion reached by addressers. Therefore, boosters such as “demonstrate”, “obviously”, “clearly”, “certainly”, “always”, “never”, and “actually”, underline shared information and engagement with addressees (Chen & Li, 2023; Hyland, 2005a; Savijoki, 2023).

            Attitude markers show the speaker’s and writer’s affective, rather than epistemic, stance or attitude towards the proposition. They convey agreement, surprise, obligation, importance, frustration, preference and so on rather than commitment. In other words, they are concerned with addressers’ judgements, feelings and affective positions. Attitude markers are realized by the use of comparatives, subordination, progressive particles, attitude verbs (e.g. agree, prefer), sentence adverbs (e.g. hopefully, unfortunately) and adjectives (e.g. appropriate, remarkable, logical) (Hyland, 2005a, Kashiha, 2022; Shen & Tao, 2021).

            Self-mention refers to the author’s presence in the text “to present propositional, affective and interpersonal information” (Hyland, 2005a, p. 181). It is realized by using possessive adjectives as well as the singular and plural forms. The former includes first person pronouns such as “I”, “my”, and “mine”. The latter is an indication of the country, government or institution represented by the speaker such as “America”, “we”, “our”, and “ours”. Addressers consciously use self-mentions to emphasize their personal stance and authorial identity (Chen & Li, 2023; Liukonen, 2018; Mai, 2016).

            Unlike stance, which has to do with writer-oriented features of interaction, engagement is concerned with reader/hearer-oriented features and is considered “an alignment dimension where writers acknowledge and connect to others, recognizing the presence of their attention, acknowledging their uncertainties, including them as discourse participants, and guiding them to interpretations” (Hyland, 2005a, p. 176). Engagement has two main purposes, the first of which is establishing solidarity with readers/hearers by meeting their expectations and addressing them as participants. Second, engagement helps speakers and writers position their audience by pulling them “into the discourse at critical points, predicting possible objections and guiding them to particular interpretations with questions, directives and references to shared knowledge” (Hyland, 2005a, p. 182). Engagement has five sub-categories: reader pronouns, directives, questions, shared knowledge, and personal asides.

Reader pronouns serve to grab the attention of the audience and establish solidarity with them by including them in the discourse and addressing them directly to show that they have similar goals because they have similar ways of understanding and seeing matters. This sub-category is realized by using inclusive we, our, the second person pronoun “you” and its possessive adjective “your”.

Directives are instructions to the audience to carry out an action and see things or interpret an argument in a certain way. They are expressed by using imperatives, modals of obligation (e.g. must, should, ought), and predicative adjectives that express the writer’s/speaker’s judgement of importance/necessity (e.g. it is important to understand/know, you should note/remember that).

Questions are an important strategy of engaging the audience in the discourse and persuading them to adopt the speaker’s/writer’s viewpoint by addressing them as being interested in exploring the issue that the question raises so that they reconsider their views upon sharing the addresser’s views and following their arguments to answer the question.

Appeals to shared knowledge are markers used to make the audience identify with the addresser’s views and agree with them by asking them to recognize something, such as an issue or an act, as accepted or familiar. This helps establish solidarity with the audience and position them within boundaries of understandings and agreements. Shared knowledge expressions are signaled through adjectives (e.g. obvious), adverbs (e.g. of course, obviously) and verb phrases (e.g. we all know, as is clear, as we are familiar).

Personal asides are used to interrupt the argument to add a personal comment or view on what is said. They do not add information to the argument or lead to propositional development but help develop the relation between the addresser and the audience by indicating that both parties are involved in the issue and thus have shared understanding and common ground. Asides are expressed using adverbs (e.g. incidentally) and prepositional phrases (e.g. by the way, in the meantime, meanwhile) (Hyland, 2005a, Hyland & Jiang, 2016; Kashiha, 2022; Liukonen, 2018).

The role of metadiscourse in achieving persuasion has been examined in different genres including academic writing (e.g. Alghazo et al., 2021; Carrio-Pastor, 2016, 2019; Del Saz, 2011; Farahani, 2018; Gillaerts & Van de Velde, 2010), media discourse (Abdullah et al., 2020; Dafouz-Milne, 2008; Kuhi & Mojood, 2014; Makkonen-Craig, 2011; Noorian & Biria, 2010), business discourse (Ho, 2016, 2018; Mur-Duenan, 2007; Neff & Dafouz, 2008) and political discourse in which the focus has been mainly on examining metadiscourse in political speeches (Abusalim et al., 2022; Albalat-Mascarell & Carrio-Pastor, 2019; Esmer, 2015; Etemadfar & Namaziandost, 2020; Liukonen, 2018; Sari, 2014; Sukma, 2017; Yipei & Lingling, 2013). To the researcher’s knowledge, no studies have investigated metadiscourse in oral arguments made in international organizations like the ICJ. Therefore, the present study fills this gap by examining interactional metadiscourse markers in the oral argument presented by Egypt’s representative at the ICJ and legal advisor in the office of Egypt’s Foreign Minister, the functions of these markers, and how they help realize persuasion.       

5) Analysis

            In this section, Hyland’s (2005a) interactional metadiscourse markers employed in Yasmine Moussa’s oral argument before the ICJ on Israeli practices in Palestinian territories are analyzed to examine their functions and show how they help realize persuasion.

            Hedges, boosters, attitude markers and self-mentions are the interactional metadiscourse markers used to express Egypt’s stance and viewpoint towards the events in Gaza as well as certainty regarding the truth of the propositions made. The use of hedges is shown in example (1):

Example (1)

…it is universally recognized that a State may not gain title to territory through any use of force, regardless of its purported legitimacy…The argument that a State may exercise self-defense against a territory under its own military occupation and effective control is counter-intuitive.

            In this example, the modal verb “may” is used as a hedging device to present Egypt’s view on Israeli policies. The argument is presented as an opinion to criticize Israeli practices and show that Egypt believes that Israel has no right to use force whether to occupy a territory or exercise self-defense against helpless civilians whose lands are occupied.

Example (2) demonstrates the use of boosters in the analyzed data.

Example (2)  

Israel’s brutal onslaught continues to rage in occupied Gaza, where 29,000 innocent civilians have been killed and almost 2.3 million people forcibly transferred and displaced…Israel is deliberately and wantonly creating conditions of life that are intended to make life in Gaza impossible… all while the Security Council repeatedly fails to call for a ceasefire, in callous disregard for Palestinian life.

            In example (2), the boosters “forcibly”, “deliberately” and “wantonly” are used to shed light on the atrocities perpetrated by Israel against Palestinians, and underscore Israel’s insistence on destroying all aspects of life in Gaza purposefully and continuously. The adverb “repeatedly” is used to show that although Isarel has been carrying out inhuman deeds that violate international law in Gaza for many years, no ceasefire was achieved or called for on the part of the Security Council. These boosters function as reminders of the inhumanity and brutality of Israel’s practices in Gaza and the failure of the international community to end the suffering of Palestinians. Accordingly, they highlight shared experience and information, and indicate the speaker’s certainty of the truth of what is said and full commitment to it.

            Attitude markers are used to persuade members of the ICJ of Egypt’s stance towards the goings-on in Gaza at the hands of Israelis. The use of attitude markers is shown in example (3).

 Example (3)

The Middle East region yearns for peace and stability and a just, comprehensive and lasting resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, based on…the establishment of a viable Palestinian State on the pre-1967 lines, with East Jerusalem as its capital… One only needs to look at Israel’s vicious, wholesale destruction of Gaza today… to realize the extent of Israel’s transgression of this principle. Israel’s prolonged occupation is therefore illegal, per se, and is an ongoing, internationally wrongful act that must be immediately brought to an end by Israel, by immediately ending the occupation.

            In this example, attitude markers are employed as a persuasive strategy to highlight the gravity of Israeli policies which defy shared international values. The markers “just”, “comprehensive”, “lasting”, and “viable” express the speaker’s attempt to rely on shared goals to persuade the ICJ of the necessity to end the war in Gaza. Thus, these markers denote the positive effect desired not only by Egypt but also by many countries worldwide. Their use reflects Egypt’s stance and desire to make the ICJ, as an international organization, and the international community adopt the same stance. The attitude markers “vicious”, “wholesale”, “illegal”, “internationally”, “wrongful”, and “immediately” are used to foster Egypt’s attitude and stance as they serve to stress the unacceptability of Israel’s practices and acts against Palestinians as they breach international humanitarian law. Accordingly, these markers help achieve consensus that Israel must end its occupation of Palestinian territories.

            The use of the interactional metadiscourse marker of self-mention is shown in example (4).

Example (4)

Egypt submits that the proposition that occupation is, merely, a de facto situation whose legality cannot be called into question is seriously flawed… In Egypt’s view, it is clear that under international law, the territorial status of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip cannot lawfully be altered through armed conflict… Egypt submits that Israel’s indefinite occupation amounts to a nullification and denial of the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination.

            Plural self-mentions are used in the above example by mentioning the country that Yasmine Moussa represents. “Egypt” is used to show that Moussa’s statement before the ICJ represents Egypt’s position regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This self-mention is used to emphasize Egypt’s rejection of any attempt to legalize Israeli occupation of Palestine, its firm belief that the conflict in Palestine cannot be resolved by force, and that Israel’s practices are an indication of its stark denial of Palestinians’ right to self-determination.

            All subcategories of engagement, except for reader pronouns, have been found in the data. They are used to include the audience, i.e. members of the ICJ, in the discourse to gain their support and coax them to take effective measures to end Israeli practices against Palestinians. Example (5) demonstrates the use of directives in the data.

Example (5)

 Egypt respectfully submits that the Court should advise the General Assembly that: (1) the prolonged Israeli occupation is, per se, a continuing violation of international law… Israel - as the wrongdoing State - is obliged to make full reparation through restitution, compensation and satisfaction… by ceasing immediately and unconditionally its unlawful occupation of Palestinian territory.

In this example, the modal “should” is used as a directive to position members of the ICJ and guide them through a line of reasoning that would make them give their advisory opinion regarding the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in Palestine, and rule that Israel must end its occupation of Palestine because it breaches international law, and must also make reparation for the wrongful acts and the damage that happened in Palestinian territories.

Questions are an important engagement interactional metadiscourse marker which is employed to construct dialogic involvement with the audience. The type of questions found in the data is rhetorical questions which are asked to hit home a particular message and not to elicit an answer. This is shown in example (6):

Example (6)

How can such practices - which have been described by a number of participants as “crimes against humanity” - how can they be consistent with any notion of human rights and human dignity in the 21st century?...Distinguished Members of the Court, for how much longer do the Palestinian people need to wait before they are able to exercise their legitimate rights under international law? For how much longer will the United Nations continue to manage the humanitarian impacts of Israeli violations, without addressing their root cause?

            Rhetorical questions are employed, in the above example, as a convincing strategy to urge members of the Court to adopt Egypt’s stance, which is also adopted by many other countries, towards the Israel-Palestine conflict. They are food for thought for members of the ICJ so that they would consider the issue in question in light of the argument presented. To this end, the rhetorical questions employed highlight the mismatch between Israel’s deeds – which are considered crimes against humanity – and the notions of human rights and dignity. They also serve to urge the Court to rule in favor of Palestinians by showing that they have already been suffering for years from all sorts of inhuman Israeli practices, yet the UN never addressed the root cause of the conflict to bring it to an end.

            Shared knowledge is used in the data as a persuasive strategy to urge the audience to identify with the views presented by drawing on their common knowledge and understandings. Example (7) demonstrates the use of this interactional metadiscourse marker.

Example (7)

Numerous resolutions of the General Assembly and Security Council affirmed the illegality of Israel’s settlements… considering them invalid and a flagrant violation of the Fourth Convention… Security Council resolution 298 stated that “all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem… are totally invalid and cannot change that status… The Security Council also declared in relation to Jerusalem in resolution 478 (1980) that Israeli “legislative and administrative measures . . . are null and void… Israel remains in defiance of these and subsequent resolutions, including resolution 2334 (2016) and numerous General Assembly resolutions in addition to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions previously described.

            In this example, the speaker, Yasmine Moussa, appeals to the shared knowledge of members of the ICJ by referring to different resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and Security Council as well as provisions of the Geneva Conventions in order to accentuate the importance of the points raised and justify the stance that Egypt adopts by providing evidence that proves the truth of the propositions made, and showing that they are based on binding resolutions passed by international institutions. The aim is to persuade the Court to come to the same conclusions regarding the illegality of Israel’s practices in Gaza by pointing out previous resolutions and presupposing that members of the Court agree with, and accept, these resolutions.

            Personal asides are used to connect with the audience and provide a remark on what has been said, as shown in example (8).

Example (8)

There is, also, no support for the proposition that Israel was acting defensively in 1967…Even if the claim of self-defense were valid-which clearly is not the case - a decades-long occupation is not reconcilable with the customary international law conditions of necessity, immediacy and proportionality.

            In example (8), the personal aside “which clearly is not the case” is employed to digress from what is said to directly address the audience – members of the Court – in a more personal way to offer a meta-comment on what is said regarding Israel’s claim of self-defense. The aside serves to ascertain complete rejection of Israel’s claim that its attacks against innocent Palestinians in 1967 and later on were self-defensive.  

6) Results and Discussion

            Quantitative analysis of the interactional metadiscourse markers found in Yasmine Moussa’s oral argument before the ICJ reveals that the total number of stance markers is 95 (75% of the total number of interactional discourse markers which is 126) while the total number of engagement markers is 31 (25% of the total). That stance markers are more commonly used than engagement markers indicates that Egypt is more concerned with voicing its views about Israeli policies and deeds in Gaza and making its stance clear than with including the audience in the argument. It could be that Egypt’s focus is on presenting its stance on the issue in question and providing evidence to prove its propositions, thereby justifying and legitimizing its demands that the Court passes a judgment that would make Israel end the war in Gaza. In other words, by presenting its position and stance evidenced by facts concerning Israeli atrocities in the Gaza Strip, Egypt seeks to engage members of the Court by focusing their attention on Isarel’s inhuman practices and guiding their interpretations of the issue which in turn will have an effect on their judgment based on their conviction of the stance adopted by Egypt as well as other countries. Table (1) presents the frequency of occurrence of the subcategories of the interactional metadiscourse markers of stance in the analyzed data.

Table (1): Frequency of occurrence of the subcategories of stance markers

            As shown in table (1), attitude markers are the most frequently occurring subcategory of the interactional metadiscourse marker of stance (48 occurrences, 51%) followed by boosters (34 occurrences, 36%) then self-mentions (7 occurrences, 7%) and hedges (6 occurrences, 6%). This indicates that attitude markers are the stance markers that help achieve persuasion most by focusing on conveying Egypt’s affective stance and position towards the Israel-Hamas war, signaling common attitudes and values, and relying on logical reasoning and acceptance of proven propositions to convince members of the ICJ to agree with the viewpoints presented by Egypt regarding Israel’s practices. Persuasion is also enhanced by using boosters, which are the second most commonly occurring metadiscourse marker of stance. They are used to express conviction and present Egypt as positive and committed to the propositions made, thereby shutting down conflicting views by highlighting the negative future consequences of the war in Gaza, and stressing the necessity and moral obligation of ending it. Self-mention and hedges occur less frequently than attitude markers and boosters which indicates that Egypt’s representative is less concerned with creating authorial presence since she is already expressing Egypt’s views on the issue. The focus is also on presenting facts, rather than a personal opinion, regarding the Israeli-Hamas war to portray the negative doings of Israel so as to convince the Court of the necessity of taking defensive measures to counteract Israel’s violent policies and stop its war crimes. 

Table (2) presents the number of occurrences of the subcategories of the interactional metadiscourse marker of engagement in the data.

Table (2): Frequency of occurrence of the subcategories of engagement markers

            Table (2) shows that the most frequently occurring engagement marker is shared knowledge (16 occurrences, 52% of the total number of engagement markers which is 31) followed by directives (8 occurrences, 26%) then questions (5 occurrences, 16%) and personal asides (2 occurrences, 6%). Heavy use of the subcategory of shared knowledge compared to the other subcategories of engagement markers reflects a desire to attain persuasion by stimulating the audience’s shared knowledge directly and explicitly by presupposing that the arguments made present commonly known facts about Israel’s dark deeds in the Gaza Strip, and that members of the ICJ will identify with the views presented by Egypt’s representative because they hold similar beliefs about humanitarian issues. Therefore, they are expected to agree with the viewpoints presented and come to the same conclusions arrived at by all the countries that support Palestine. Accordingly, shared knowledge, as an engagement marker, represents an emotional appeal as the speaker seeks to engage the audience in the argument and obtain their support by appealing to their knowledge and understandings of the tragic plight of Palestinians living under Israel’s illegal occupation.

            That directives are the second frequently occurring engagement marker following shared knowledge indicates that they are employed as a persuasive strategy to shape the thoughts of members of the ICJ by giving them indirect commands which help raise their awareness of the different aspects related to the Israel-Hamas conflict, and make them see the situation in such a way that would make them rule that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is unlawful and violates international law.

            Questions, which are the third commonly occurring subcategory of engagement, are a powerful engagement and persuasive technique as they are used to capture the attention of the Court whose members are invited, via the rhetorical questions posed, to re-consider and think about the Israeli-Palestinian issue in light of the arguments presented not only by Egypt but also by all pro-Palestine countries.

            Personal asides are the least frequently occurring engagement markers as the concern is not with digressing from what is said to offer a personal comment, remark or opinion. Rather, the focus is on presenting solid arguments backed by evidence to prove that Israel is committing genocidal acts in Gaza and should be held accountable for war crimes.

7) Conclusion

            Employing Hyland’s (2005a) model of interactional metadiscourse markers, the present study has examined the interactional metadiscourse markers employed in Yasmine Moussa’s oral argument before the ICJ regarding Israeli policies and practices against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The study has attempted to answer three research questions, the first of which pertains to the interactional metadiscourse markers used in the data. The study reveals that the two categories of interactional metadiscourse, namely stance and engagement, are used. The subcategories of stance provided by Hyland (2005a) are employed in the data. These are: hedges, boosters, attitude markers, and self-mention. Of the five subcategories of engagement given by Hyland (2005a), four have been found in the data. These are: directives, questions, shared knowledge, and personal asides.

Concerning the second research question, which is concerned with the frequency of occurrence of the interactional metadiscourse markers used in the data, it has been found that stance markers outnumber engagement ones (95 occurrences, 75% vs 31 occurrences, 25%). Regarding the subcategories of stance, attitude markers occur more frequently followed by boosters, then self-mentions and hedges. As for the subcategories of engagement markers, shared knowledge is the most frequently occurring engagement marker followed by directives, questions and personal asides, respectively.

The third question is concerned with the functions performed by the interactional metadiscourse markers employed in Yasmine Moussa’s oral argument before the ICJ. It has been found that they are generally used to persuade members of the ICJ of the stance adopted by Egypt and other pro-Palestine countries regarding the Israel-Hamas war, show that Israel has committed war crimes against Palestinians, and underscore the necessity of ending Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

            Concerning the functions of the subcategories of stance, the data reveals that hedges are used to criticize Israel’s practices in Gaza, and assert that it has no right to occupy Palestinian territories or use force against Palestinians. Boosters are used to show certainty of the truth of the propositions made concerning the illegal and unhuman deeds of Israel in the Gaza Strip. Attitude markers are employed to refer to shared goals so as to ascertain the illegality of Israeli occupation. Self-mentions help emphasize Egypt’s rejection of Israel’s policies and practices in Gaza.

            As for the subcategories of engagement, it has been found that directives are used to convince members of the ICJ, through a line of reasoning, that Israel should be charged with genocide in Gaza. Rhetorical questions serve as eye openers to the abusive Israeli deeds against innocent Palestinians. Shared knowledge is a persuasive strategy used to convince the Court of the legitimacy of the demands made to force Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories by appealing to shared human values and showing that Israel’s practices breach these values. Personal asides are employed to make a personal comment which emphasizes full rejection of Israel’s unfair and inhuman practices against Palestinians.

            The present study has investigated the interactional metadiscourse markers, their frequency of occurrence, and functions in the oral argument presented by Egypt’s representative at the ICJ. Future research can compare and contrast the metadiscourse markers employed in the arguments presented by other representatives to examine how markers help deliver the different views of countries which support or oppose the Israeli-Hamas conflict. Future research can also examine the metadiscourse markers used in social media platforms to show users’ stances towards the Israel-Palestine issue. Moreover, metadiscourse markers used in the various demonstrations to denounce Israeli practices in Gaza can be examined. Research can investigate the interactional metadiscourse markers used to construct Israeli and Palestinian identity in various discourses, including political speeches, interviews, press conferences, and hearings before international organizations such as the Security Council, the World Court, and the International Criminal Court (ICC).