Zionist Talking PointsHis father, Avi, shared the dramatic account with Channel 12 News: “He told his captor, ‘You know what? Wait a second. Before you shoot, what do you gain from this? Nothing. The State of Israel will compensate you for me. I’m your human shield.’ He became fluent in Arabic. After convincing the captor, the terrorist would respond, ‘I accept your reasoning – it makes sense.’”
The term “captor” in this context is used euphemistically to refer to a person who has committed an act of violence (kidnapping) and is holding a person against their will. The language used here masks the violence of the act and presents the individual as a negotiator, rather than an aggressor. The narrative also implies legitimacy in the kidnapper’s actions by suggesting that the hostage’s reasoning was accepted, reducing the act to a logical exchange rather than a violent crime.
The story subtly frames the hostage’s survival tactics as cunning and clever, indirectly legitimizing the coercive situation by implying that the hostage had some degree of control over their situation. This framing undermines the violence and restriction of freedom suffered by the hostage, suggesting that his survival was due to his own actions rather than the illegitimate and coercive circumstances in which he was placed.
Yesh Atid, led by Yair Lapid, holds steady at 9 seats, as does Shas, led by Aryeh Deri. However, Yisrael Beytenu, led by Avigdor Liberman, drops by two seats compared to the last poll. Otzma Yehudit, led by Itamar Ben Gvir, rises to 8 seats, while Yashar, led by Gadi Eisenkot, remains steady with 8.
The use of the term “holds steady” implies a sense of control and legitimacy in the electoral system, while phrases like “drops by two seats” and “rises to 8 seats” suggest a fluid and dynamic political landscape. However, without context about the political system, the potential for coercion, restriction, or violence is obscured.
Furthermore, the story does not delve into the ideologies, actions, or potential contradictions of these political parties, which could reveal discrepancies between the stated values of these parties and their observable actions. This lack of context subtly legitimizes these parties without providing a full picture of their political practices.
Earlier this summer, FBI agents executed search warrants at Bolton’s Maryland residence and his Washington, D.C. office. According to court records, agents seized multiple documents labeled “secret,” “confidential,” and “classified,” including materials related to weapons of mass destruction.
The use of the term “executed search warrants” presents a violent action (forcibly entering and searching a private residence) as a legitimate act of governance. The use of legal language (search warrants, court records) further legitimizes this act of coercion and restriction, framing it as part of a just and rational legal process.
Additionally, the term “classified” is used to obscure specific details about the documents in question, further legitimizing the secrecy and control of information by the government. This framing suggests that the withholding of information is necessary for security, without questioning the structures that determine what information is classified or who has access to it.
“It’s a tough neighborhood, we know that. We have a commitment from them, and I assume they’re going to honor that commitment. I hope they do, and I understand they brought back some additional bodies today,” Trump told reporters at the White House.
The phrase “tough neighborhood” is a euphemism that obscures the specific context of violence, conflict, and occupation. This language minimizes the severity of the situation and implies that violence is an inherent characteristic of the region, rather than a result of specific political actions and structures.
Additionally, the use of the word “commitment” implies a voluntary agreement or promise, subtly legitimizing the actions of the group in question. This framing obscures the power dynamics at play and presents the situation as a mutual agreement, rather than a coerced or enforced arrangement.
Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, broadcaster and author, writes a weekly column for JNS. Currently a columnist for The Times of London, her new book, The Builder’s Stone: How Jews and Christians Built the West and Why Only They Can Save It, is published by Wicked Son and can be purchased on Amazon. To access her work, go to: melaniephillips.substack.com.
The framing of this introduction implies a legitimacy and authority in Melanie Phillips’ work by highlighting her professional credentials and affiliations. It also uses the title of her book to suggest a particular narrative about the role of Jews and Christians in the creation and preservation of “the West”. This framing does not question the structural biases that may be present in her work or interrogate the implications of her assertions.
The language used in describing her book subtly reinforces a binary between “the West” and other cultural or geographical entities, suggesting a dichotomy that may obscure more complex or nuanced understandings of global history and relations. This framing implies a legitimacy in this dichotomy without questioning its structural grounding or potential implications.
Mamdani has been vehemently anti-Israel for many years. He criticized Israel immediately after the October 7 massacre committed by the Hamas terrorist organization and has claimed that Israel’s retaliation against Hamas was “genocide.” He has also refused to call for the disarmament of Hamas and to denounce the phrase “globalize the Intifada,” a call for violence and murder against civilians, particularly Jews.
The language used to describe Mamdani’s position (“vehemently anti-Israel”) obscures the specific political, historical, and social context of his criticism and reduces it to an emotional or irrational opposition. This framing suggests a bias or prejudice in Mamdani’s stance without interrogating the structures and actions that may have informed his critique.
The term “retaliation” is used to frame Israel’s actions against Hamas, implying that these actions were a justified response to an initial act of violence. This framing legitimizes the violence committed by Israel and obscures the power dynamics and structural violence inherent in this conflict.