Salih Mahdi Adai Al-Mamoory

This study examines the pragmatic strategies employed by Arab and Western politicians in shaping public opinion regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By analyzing political speeches and media statements, the research reveals a distinct contrast in rhetorical approaches between the two groups. Arab politicians predominantly use emotionally charged language and accusatory rhetoric, framing Israel as the aggressor and appealing to cultural and ideological sentiments that resonate with their domestic audiences. In contrast, Western politicians adopt a more neutral, diplomatic tone, focusing on cooperation and peaceful negotiations to navigate complex geopolitical interests. The findings confirm that these divergent strategies significantly influence public sentiment, with Arab leaders mobilizing strong support for Palestine, while Western leaders attempt to maintain international alliances by promoting balance and compromise. This study contributes to the fields of political pragmatics, cross-cultural communication, and conflict resolution by highlighting the role of language in shaping public perceptions and policy decisions. The research emphasizes the need for policymakers to consider cultural differences in political communication, offering an understanding to develop more effective communication strategies for international diplomacy. This study examines the pragmatic strategies employed by Arab and Western politicians in shaping public opinion regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By analyzing political speeches and media statements, the research reveals a distinct contrast in rhetorical approaches between the two groups.

This study investigates the negotiation strategies used by Democratic and Republican candidates in the 2024 U.S. presidential debates, focusing on how language functions as a tool to navigate ideological divides in an increasingly polarized political climate. By applying a mixed-method approach, combining qualitative discourse analysis and survey data, the research examines debate transcripts alongside citizen feedback to assess the effectiveness of candidates’ rhetorical strategies. Drawing on Politeness Theory, Speech Act Theory, and Pragma-Crafting Theory, the study reveals distinct linguistic patterns: Democratic candidates employ inclusive, cooperative language to foster unity, while Republican candidates use direct, assertive language to project confidence and decisiveness. The findings highlight the role of language in shaping voter perceptions of leadership and ideological alignment, offering insights into how candidates' rhetoric resonates with their respective bases and impacts broader electoral dynamics. This research contributes to the fields of political communication and negotiation theory by offering a comparative analysis of debate strategies and providing practical implications for political strategists and campaign teams navigating the complexities of modern electoral discourse. This research contributes to the fields of political communication and negotiation theory by offering a comparative analysis of debate strategies and providing practical implications for political strategists and campaign teams navigating the complexities of modern electoral discourse.