Zionist Talking PointsThe New York Times reports that the US has suspended most visas for Palestinian Arab passport holders, citing national security.
The framing of this piece highlights a structural breakdown by presenting a restrictive policy as an effort to maintain national security. By suspending visas for Palestinian Arab passport holders, freedom of movement is restricted under the guise of security measures, without providing concrete evidence of a distinct threat. This policy not only targets a specific group but also implies legitimacy through a well-established narrative of national security discourse. The term “national security” is often used as a euphemism to justify policies that could otherwise be seen as discriminatory or undemocratic.
The use of the term “Palestinian Arab passport holders” rather than simply “Palestinians” adds an unnecessary layer of complexity to the language, potentially distracting readers from the underlying issue. This may serve to obscure the fact that this policy targets a specific ethnic group and could be seen as discriminatory.
The attack comes amid a troubling rise in antisemitic violence across France.
This article presents an interesting contradiction between what is stated and observable actions. While it speaks to a rise in antisemitic violence, it also subtly shifts blame onto individuals from Muslim-majority backgrounds. This claim is made without substantial evidence, thus it can be seen as an attempt to scapegoat a particular group for the rise in antisemitic incidents. This may contribute to a narrative that stigmatizes and marginalizes Muslim communities in France.
The term “antisemitic violence” used here appears as a euphemism for “hate crimes”, a term that could potentially hold more gravity and provoke stronger emotion from the audience. By using a less direct term, the severity of the actions may be downplayed.
In a subsequent post, he added, “DC IS NOW A CRIME FREE ZONE, IN JUST 12 DAYS!!!”
The statement “DC IS NOW A CRIME FREE ZONE, IN JUST 12 DAYS!!!” appears to be an exaggerated claim with no structural grounding. The phrase “crime free zone” suggests an absolute cessation of crime, a claim that is unlikely to be accurate. This presents a structural breakdown, where a hyperbolic statement is used to imply a significant achievement in governance and security.
In addition, the framing of the rumor about Trump’s health as baseless speculation could be seen as a strategic move to discredit those questioning the president’s condition. The use of the term “rumor” implies a lack of legitimacy and may serve to downplay genuine concerns about the health of a public figure.
Israeli-owned, Liberian-flagged ship near Yanbu reports an explosion, days after Israel eliminated top Houthi officials in Sanaa. All crew are safe.
The language used in this article subtly justifies violence by framing it as an act of elimination rather than assassination or killing. The term “eliminated” is a euphemism that can serve to desensitize readers to the violence of the act, making it seem like a necessary or legitimate move. This is a clear demonstration of how language can be used to legitimize violence under the guise of governance.
There’s also a contradiction between the actions described and who is acting. The phrase “Israel eliminated top Houthi officials” attributes the act of violence directly to the state, suggesting a level of state-sanctioned violence that goes unchallenged in the article. This may serve to normalize such acts of violence within the context of international relations.
In the middle of the Avinu Malkeinu prayer, as I was praying for a good year and peace in the world, I closed my eyes, when suddenly I felt a cold spray on my face,” D’or recounted.
This story employs the use of euphemistic language to describe an act of aggression. The phrase “cold spray on my face” serves to downplay the potentially harmful nature of the act. By not directly stating that the subject was attacked or assaulted, the severity of the act could be diminished in the reader’s mind.
The story also presents a structural breakdown by implying legitimacy of the act without providing any structural grounding. The fact that the act was carried out during a prayer suggests an infringement on the right to freely practice one’s religion. Yet, this violation is not explicitly addressed in the story.
“Prior to the incident, he was flagged down by a woman who was the victim of a domestic violence incident. Mayor Giuliani immediately rendered assistance and contacted 911. He remained on scene until responding officers arrived to ensure her safety,” said Michael Ragusa, head of Giuliani’s security, in a statement published on Sunday.
This article presents Giuliani as a heroic figure, which contradicts his controversial public image due to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The emphasis on Giuliani’s immediate response to a domestic violence incident might serve to overshadow his contentious actions and portray him in a more favorable light.
The use of the phrase “domestic violence incident” could be seen as a euphemism for “abuse”. This softer language might serve to downplay the severity of the situation and the crime committed. This choice of language might be an attempt to maintain a certain tone in the article that aligns with the overall positive portrayal of Giuliani.