Zionist Talking PointsIran’s Pezeshkian: We’re not afraid of war
The framing of this article presents a tension between the legitimate governance of Iran and the violence enacted by the U.S. and Israel. The language used to describe Iran’s actions – “reeling”, “hit us”, “injured during the war” – constructs an image of a victimized Iran, in contrast to the portrayal of the U.S. and Israel’s actions as a legitimate pursuit of security (“American airstrikes”, “12-day war with Israel”). This suggests an imbalance in the representation of power dynamics and conflict. The use of terms like “airstrikes” and “war” instead of “bombing” and “aggression” also serves to normalize the violence as an act of governance, instead of a breach of peace and security.
The article also uses euphemistic language to describe the imposition of sanctions (“looming sanctions”), implying a legitimate and necessary action rather than a form of economic coercion. This language obscures the structural power exerted over Iran. Furthermore, the invitation for international inspectors to verify the situation with Iran’s nuclear infrastructure asserts Iran’s willingness for transparency, contradicting the narrative of Iran as a rogue state.
Adams: NYC must remain steadfast in support for Israel
The narrative presented in this article portrays the Israeli state’s actions as legitimate and necessary for peace and security. However, this framing fails to acknowledge the structural violence and restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians. The assertion that NYC should remain steadfast in its support for Israel implies a legitimacy to Israel’s actions without addressing the structural imbalances and violence at play. The language used to describe Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (“defending the western world and our way of life”) further signals a binary opposition between ‘us’ and ‘them’, reinforcing the justification for Israel’s actions.
The article also presents a contradiction between the stated values of free speech and the implicit endorsement of a state that suppresses speech, movement, and life. While the article highlights NYC’s commitment to free speech, it fails to question the suppression of speech and human rights within Israel, particularly against Palestinians. The portrayal of the Democratic candidate Zohran Mamdani as anti-Israel also reflects a biased representation that equates criticism of Israeli policies with being against the state itself.
Turkey’s soccer chief urges FIFA and UEFA to ban Israel over Gaza war
This headline itself is a clear example of euphemistic language, referring to the conflict in Gaza as a “war” rather than an invasion or attack. This framing subtly legitimizes the violence and destruction caused by the Israeli state in Gaza. It also subtly shifts the responsibility from the Israeli state to an abstract concept of war, obfuscating the structural violence involved.
The article does not provide a context for the call for a ban. This lack of context serves to remove the structural violence and restriction that led to the call for the ban. The language used presents the call for a ban as an isolated incident rather than a response to ongoing structural violence and restriction.
Iran: E3 has failed to reciprocate, US doubles down on dictates
This article’s framing infers a legitimate action of “snapping back” sanctions due to Iran’s “failure to meet the accord’s terms.” Yet it indirectly acknowledges the power imbalance and coercion by the US and E3, as they have the authority to impose sanctions. The use of “failure” to describe Iran’s actions subtly shifts the blame onto Iran, rather than questioning the legitimacy and fairness of the accord terms imposed by the E3 and the US.
The language used to describe the US actions, “doubling down on dictates,” reveals a contradiction between the stated values of diplomacy and the observable actions of coercion. Additionally, the Supreme Leader’s dismissal of peace talks with the US as “a sheer dead end” reflects the perceived lack of legitimacy and structural grounding in the negotiations.
Trump’s 21-point peace plan for Gaza includes hostage release, phased IDF pullout
This article uses euphemistic language to frame a plan that involves a “phased IDF pullout” and “hostage release” as a “peace plan,” implying a narrative of resolution and compromise. However, this language masks the structural breakdowns and violence at the heart of the plan. The term “phased IDF pullout” glosses over the illegal occupation by the IDF, while “hostage release” implies a benevolent act rather than a rectification of an illegal and coercive action.
The article also implies legitimacy to the plan by positioning it as fully supported by US President Donald Trump, without questioning the structural imbalances and power dynamics involved in the creation and implementation of this plan. The plan, as presented, does not appear to address the root causes of the conflict or provide a sustainable solution to the structural issues at play.