Stuck between group and transgression An analysis of the strategic utilization of stance to navigate in-group condemnations

This study examines how politicians navigate the challenge of publicly condemning transgressions committed by members of their in-group. Examining ten transgressions committed by Israeli political actors which attracted public attention, the study engages in a discourse analysis of politicians' posts, illustrating eight discursive strategies for coping with this challenge. It utilizes Du Bois' stance triangle to illustrate how politicians navigate conflicting affiliations to their in-group and to public values. While certain types of in-group condemnations illustrate an adherence to public values at the expense of group cohesion, other types of downgraded condemnations demonstrate how group affiliation trumps value-affiliation. The study illustrates that the prevalence of downgraded in-group condemnations is indicative of extreme polarization at the expense of "statism"-an increasing trend in Israel in recent years.