Zionist Talking PointsAccording to the document, the war will officially end upon approval by the Israeli government.
The framing of the article glosses over the coercive nature of war by presenting its termination as a unilateral decision by the Israeli government, implicitly legitimizing the violence that has been enacted. Language such as “military operations” and “aerial and artillery bombardments” are euphemisms for what is essentially widespread destruction and potential loss of life. The use of the phrase “military operations” also implies a level of order and organization that obscures the chaotic, destructive nature of war.
The article also creates a misleading narrative of legitimacy around the Israeli government’s actions by stating that the war will end “upon approval by the Israeli government”, suggesting that it is within the power and authority of the Israeli government to initiate and end conflict at will. It subtly reinforces the notion that the Israeli government has the right to control and dictate terms without the need for collective or mutual consent. This is a clear example of coercion framed as governance. Original Article
Speaking during the meeting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “We are at a momentous development in the last two years.”
The use of words like “momentous development” and “extraordinary help” offer a positive spin on a situation that has likely involved violence and coercion. This can be read as an attempt to legitimize Israeli government action through the use of euphemistic language. Similarly, the repeated thanking and praising of individuals and nations involved in this conflict further obscures the violence and coercion inherent in the situation.
The contradiction between stated values and observable actions is evident here. While the Prime Minister speaks of achieving the goal of returning hostages, the implied violence necessary to reach this point is glossed over. Furthermore, the article implies legitimacy by stating that the Prime Minister has “made some very, very difficult calls”, suggesting a level of sacrifice or nobility in his decisions, rather than acknowledging the systemic violence and coercion that such decisions may have involved. Original Article