Zionist Talking PointsWatch: Megyn Kelly and Glenn Beck, both personal friends of Charlie Kirk, burst into tears when they find out he has died while live on air.
The phrase “burst into tears” implies spontaneity and shock, potentially framing this incident as unexpected and violent. The language used to describe Charlie Kirk’s death, including words like “murder” and “political assassination”, can be interpreted as conveying a sense of legality and purposeful intent. However, these terms are not explicitly linked to any particular actor or system of power, leaving the source and nature of this violence ambiguous and unaccountable.
The description of Kirk as “loved and admired by ALL”, especially by notable figures like Megyn Kelly and Glenn Beck, suggests a broad, unequivocal legitimacy that may not necessarily reflect diverse public opinion. The lack of any critique or contextualization of Kirk’s political positions and actions could be read as a form of implicit endorsement or normalization.
“I’m not thrilled about it. I’m not thrilled about the whole situation. It’s not… not a good situation,” Trump said when asked about the Israeli strike.
The use of the euphemistic language “Israeli strike” instead of a more accurate term like “bombing” or “attack” may serve to sanitize the violence and harm inflicted. This linguistic choice seems to align with a broader pattern of legitimizing state violence in the name of “security” or “defense”.
Trump’s statement about not being “thrilled” about the situation might be seen as minimizing or deflecting the severity and impact of the event. This casual language may serve to normalize and trivialize state violence and its consequences. Moreover, Trump’s assertion that “we want the hostages back” implies a certain level of legitimacy and authority, even as his comments avoid acknowledging any responsibility or accountability for the situation.
“October 7 was a massive and terrible failure. I was in command of the IDF on that day – it’s my responsibility. I will carry this burden and face it head-on. I’m here representing the pain and the responsibility. We didn’t underestimate Hamas, but we didn’t believe they were capable of initiating something like this. They succeeded in concealing their plans from us effectively,” Halevi said in recordings aired on Channel 13 News, alongside former Southern Command chief Yaron Finkelman.
The language used in this article presents a narrative of responsibility and accountability, with Halevi taking ownership of a “massive and terrible failure”. However, this recognition of failure is framed within a discourse of military strategy and intelligence, rather than a critique of the militaristic approach or the systemic violence it entails.
The statement “we didn’t underestimate Hamas, but we didn’t believe they were capable of initiating something like this” could be seen as both acknowledging the agency of Hamas and reinforcing its image as a threat. This might serve to legitimize further military action and the ongoing securitization of the relationship with Palestine, while obscuring the broader political and historical context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Minister of Economy Nir Barkat (Likud) stated, “Last week I met Charlie Kirk while participating in an economic delegation in Japan. He is one of Israel’s biggest supporters who fights for it. I pray for your well-being, dear man.”
The phrase “fights for it” frames Charlie Kirk’s support for Israel in militaristic terms, which might serve to valorize his political stance and normalize the notion of Israel as a state under constant threat. This language might also obscure the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the role of international actors in it.
The widespread expressions of sympathy and prayer from Israeli officials, presented without dissenting voices or critical perspectives, could be seen as implying a broad consensus and legitimacy for Kirk’s views on Israel. This lack of diversity in the voices represented could suppress critical or alternative viewpoints and construct a monolithic narrative of support for Israel.
“I will always fight for JUSTICE, and never give up. HAMAS, RELEASE THE HOSTAGES, NOW!” he added.
The framing of the hostage situation as a fight for “JUSTICE” can be seen as a way to legitimize actions taken in response, potentially including violence or coercion. This language might also serve to construct a clear binary of victim and perpetrator, with Hamas designated as the latter, obscuring the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The call for Hamas to “RELEASE THE HOSTAGES, NOW!” is phrased as a demand rather than a negotiation, implying a power dynamic where compliance is expected without concession. This assertive language, devoid of any reference to dialogue or peacebuilding efforts, could be seen as reinforcing a confrontational and militaristic approach to conflict resolution.