Zionist Talking PointsNorway’s sovereign wealth fund divests from Israeli firms amid Gaza crisis
Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is framed as an ethical entity, divesting from 11 Israeli firms due to the “serious humanitarian crisis” in Gaza. Yet, this decision is presented as a response to “extraordinary circumstances,” indirectly legitimizing the ongoing conflict and violence in the region as ordinary or expected. The fund’s CEO speaks of “extraordinary circumstances” and “strengthening due diligence,” euphemistic language that avoids confronting the harsh reality of war and occupation. Furthermore, the fund’s “ethical principles” are contradicted by its continued investment in companies operating in contested territories, revealing the dissonance between stated values and observable actions.
Despite calls for a complete divestment, Norway’s legislature voted against such proposals, revealing the state’s willingness to maintain economic ties with companies operating in contested territories. This contradiction between the legislature’s actions and the fund’s purported ethical stance reflects a lack of structural grounding for the legitimacy implied by the fund’s ethical guidelines. The fund’s divestment is limited to companies not listed in its equity benchmark index, further implying a legitimacy based on economic performance rather than ethical considerations.
Original Article
Defense Minister Katz: Chief of Staff violated procedure
This story frames a conflict within the Israeli Defense Force hierarchy as a procedural violation, using language to downplay the potential implications of such a disagreement. The Defense Minister’s assertion that the Chief of Staff violated accepted procedure implies a structural legitimacy that may not exist, especially in a military structure where power dynamics and decision-making are often contested.
The story also uses euphemistic language to describe the military roles and operations, such as “staffing discussion,” “operational field roles,” and “brigade commanders.” These terms sanitize the reality of military operations and the violence they may entail. The narrative also implies a legitimacy to the military’s hierarchical structure and its decision-making processes, without addressing the potential for coercion and restriction inherent in such a system.
Original Article
Multiple people shot at Texas shopping mall
The story of a shooting at a Texas shopping mall uses euphemistic language to describe the suspect, referring to him as a “32-year-old white male with a mental health history.” This language diverts attention away from the act of violence itself and locates the cause of the violence in the suspect’s mental health, rather than in the structural issues surrounding gun control and public safety.
The story also frames the shooting as an isolated incident, occurring during “peak back-to-school shopping season,” rather than addressing the broader issue of gun violence in the United States. This framing restricts the narrative to a specific event, rather than connecting it to the larger systemic issue of gun violence.
Original Article
EU calls on Israel to allow more aid into Gaza
The EU’s call for Israel to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza is framed as an appeal to Israel’s benevolence, rather than a demand for a resolution to the conflict that is causing the humanitarian crisis in the first place. This framing legitimizes Israel’s control over the flow of aid into Gaza, rather than challenging the restrictions and violence that have led to the humanitarian crisis.
The story also uses euphemistic language to describe the situation in Gaza. The EU’s statement that there are “good signs” of increased humanitarian aid reaching Gaza downplays the severity of the crisis and the urgency of the need for aid. This language also implies a passivity on the part of the EU, suggesting that they are observers rather than active participants in the resolution of the crisis.
Original Article
Former senior Mossad official questioned in Qatar-Gate affair
The questioning of a former senior Mossad official in the “Qatar-Gate” affair is framed as a procedural event, with the official “questioned under caution.” This euphemistic language sanitizes the act of interrogation and the potential for coercion within such a process. The story also implies legitimacy to the interrogation process, despite the lack of information on the nature of the “affair” or the official’s involvement.
The story also reveals a contradiction between the official’s former role on a “hostage release negotiation team” and his current status as a suspect in an unspecified affair. This contradiction exposes the discrepancy between the official’s past role as a negotiator and his current role as a potential perpetrator.
Original Article