Zionist Talking PointsUniversity of Maryland’s student government passes a BDS resolution on Yom Kippur, drawing sharp criticism from Jewish leaders who called the timing exclusionary.
In this article, the framing inherently presents the University of Maryland’s student government’s decision to pass a BDS resolution on Yom Kippur as problematic, based on criticism from Jewish leaders. The language implies that the timing was intentionally exclusionary, suggesting a form of coercion, without exploring the structural reasoning behind the timing of the vote. It’s important to note this framing does not question the motives behind the BDS resolution itself, but rather focuses on the timing of the action, which could be seen as a diversion from the actual issue at hand.
Furthermore, the use of the term “sharp criticism” amplifies the legitimacy of the voices of Jewish leaders who oppose the resolution, while potentially minimizing or ignoring the perspectives of those who support the resolution. There is a lack of balance in presenting the different viewpoints, which could imply a bias in the coverage. This language might be misleading as it tends to present one side as the victim and the other as the perpetrator without providing context. Original Article
“Based on the Statement just issued by Hamas, I believe they are ready for a lasting PEACE. Israel must immediately stop the bombing of Gaza, so that we can get the Hostages out safely and quickly! Right now, it’s far too dangerous to do that,” Trump wrote in a statement posted to his Truth Social account.
This article uses language that maintains a sense of legitimacy and security around actions that could be considered violent or coercive. The use of the term “bombing” instead of more specific terminology such as “airstrikes” or “military action” could be seen as euphemistic, potentially downplaying the severity of the situation. The call for Israel to “immediately stop the bombing of Gaza” is presented as a universally accepted precondition for achieving peace, without questioning whether this action is just or effective.
Meanwhile, the framing of Hamas as being “ready for a lasting PEACE” implies a shift in their position without providing evidence of structural changes within the organization or its methods. This contradiction between stated values and observable actions can be misleading, as it appears to present a resolution to conflict without addressing underlying issues. Original Article
Lorde later justified her decision, claiming it was the right one and adding, “I pride myself on being an informed young citizen, and I had done a lot of reading and sought a lot of opinions before deciding to book a show in Tel Aviv, but I’m not too proud to admit I didn’t make the right call on this one. Tel Aviv, it’s been a dream of mine to visit this beautiful part of the world for many years, and I’m truly sorry to reverse my commitment to come play for you. I hope one day we can all dance.”
In this story, the framing of Lorde’s decision to cancel her show in Tel Aviv is presented as a personal one, based on her self-proclaimed status as an “informed young citizen.” This language implies legitimacy and responsibility in her decision-making process, but it fails to address the broader structural and political implications of her action. The narrative developed around the idea of her personal journey and learning process, rather than diving into the complex socio-political landscape that could have influenced her decision.
Additionally, the use of euphemistic language, such as “I didn’t make the right call,” softens the impact of her action. It also subtly shifts the focus from the broader BDS movement and its potential implications for artists like Lorde, to a more individualistic narrative of personal growth and regret. This could potentially downplay the structural impact and significance of her decision within the larger context of BDS activism and Israeli-Palestinian relations. Original Article
“An Agreement must be reached with Hamas by Sunday Evening at SIX (6) P.M., Washington, D.C. time,” Trump wrote. “Every Country has signed on! If this last chance agreement is not reached, all hell, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas. There will be peace in the Middle East one way or the other.”
Again, this article uses language that presents a potentially violent action as a legitimate and necessary step towards peace. The line “all hell, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas” suggests a form of coercive threat, framed as a final resort in the quest for peace. This language serves to legitimize potential violent action under the guise of achieving peace, without questioning the ethics or effectiveness of such an approach.
The phrase “Every Country has signed on” implies a universal agreement and support for this approach, suggesting a level of legitimacy without providing information about which countries these are, or what their exact stance is. This could be misleading, as it presents a united front without providing clear evidence of this unity. Original Article
The father’s social media posts show consistent support for Hamas, noted The Guardian. On October 10, he questioned why other Arab nations had not joined the assault, writing: “Where is this so-called resistance with the Haifa rockets… May God’s curse be upon the hypocrites, the traitors pledged to a disgusting and filthy sectarian agenda – the moment of truth is inevitably coming.”
This article uses language that biases the reader against the father due to his support for Hamas, presenting this fact as a problematic aspect of his character. The use of quotes from his social media posts serves to paint a picture of a man who supports violence and sectarianism. This framing could be seen as subtly coercive, as it associates his personal views with the broader actions of Hamas.
The use of the term “assault” instead of a more neutral term like ‘conflict’ or ‘situation’ adds a violent connotation to the actions of other Arab nations. This could be seen as a form of euphemistic language, as it portrays these actions as inherently violent and unjust, without providing context or exploring the reasons behind their involvement. Original Article
Calls of “go to Palestine, leave us alone” and “shame on you” echoed as Lammy, also Justice Secretary, attempted to deliver a message of unity. One man shouted, “You are all guilty. You have allowed Jew hatred in Manchester, on the streets. We do not want you speaking here today.” Another added, “Empty words. We want action.”
This article presents a scene of emotional and heated exchanges, framing Lammy’s attempt to deliver a message of unity as an act of resistance against accusations of “Jew hatred.” The use of direct quotes from the crowd serves to amplify their anger and frustration, framing Lammy’s message as inadequate and insincere. This language serves to question the legitimacy of Lammy’s position, suggesting that his words do not align with his actions.
The term “Jew hatred” is a strong and emotive phrase, and its use in this context could be seen as a form of euphemistic language. It simplifies complex socio-political issues into a single, emotionally-charged term, potentially diverting attention from the structural issues at hand and focusing instead on individual attitudes and behaviors. Original Article