When states use force, it is accompanied by a rhetoric of presentation and justification designed to win domestic or international support. When states are blamed for the use of force, they offer accounts that construct fact and attribution so as to manage image predicaments and foster desired impressions. There is a tendency in the literature, however, to ignore or treat this rhetoric as a sideshow, or as a mere reflection of the material aspects of action. This paper, in contrast, draws on discursive psychology, accounts theory, and impression management theory to address the rhetoric of force as action and interaction. The discussion identifies patterns of typical argumentation and rhetorical strategies, and seeks to define their role in how states manage and negotiate the meaning of force. This is done by means of a discourse analytic study of the international debate over the Goldstone report on the 2008-2009 Gaza War, focusing on the Israeli side.
