Depending on the forum and speaker, calls for a ceasefire take on very different connotations. Certain calls for a ceasefire are perceived by some Israelis as malicious attacks on Israel’s right to self-defense, while others are understood as a strategic option for the Israeli government to consider. The discussion prompts below will guide learners in exploring how the context of calls for ceasefire—their who, when, where, and how—shapes their connotations and how these calls are received.
Examine the following statements:
1. “Ceasefire now! From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free. Israel must stop the genocide in Gaza.”
2. “Ceasefire now! Bring the hostages home now. We can’t wait any longer.”
Questions to consider:
1. What does each statement focus on?
2. What is “missing” from each statement?
3. Are both statements calling for the same thing?
The following video clips illustrate the differences in statements calling for a ceasefire. Feel free to use other videos that feel more timely or appropriate for your setting.
1. Pro-Palestine Ceasefire March in Washington
2. Pope Francis (0:00-1:40)
3. Tel Aviv Rally (0:00-1:23)
After each clip, consider:
1. Who is calling for a ceasefire?
2. Where are they calling for a ceasefire?
3. How are they calling for a ceasefire?
4. Why are they calling for a ceasefire?
5. What do you understand each to mean when they call for a ceasefire?
Note for educator:
1. Draw attention to what’s not included in each of the calls.
2. Challenge learners to unpack what priority is stressed in each ceasefire call. For example, Pope Francis is prioritizing the total halting of death and suffering over security concerns and regional politics, while the Israelis calling for a ceasefire are prioritizing the fate of the hostages.
Concluding questions:
1. How does the context of calls for a ceasefire shape the connotation of the calls?
2. Why might some calls for a ceasefire be received more positively than others?