Zionist Talking PointsPolice arrest Military Advocate General, Major General Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, along with the former Chief Military Prosecutor. Both are being questioned on suspicion of obstruction of investigative proceedings and breach of trust.
The term “breach of trust” is a euphemism for criminal activity, reducing the severity of the offense in the reader’s mind. By using vague language like “obstruction of investigative proceedings,” the article leaves the nature and extent of the alleged wrongdoing open to interpretation, thus minimizing the apparent severity of the offense. The use of prestigious titles such as “Military Advocate General” and “Chief Military Prosecutor” further obscures the nature of the alleged offenses, creating a sense of legitimacy around the actions of the individuals involved.
The phrase “being questioned on suspicion” subtly shifts the focus away from the individuals being investigated, suggesting that the investigation is speculative rather than based on substantial evidence. This language could be seen as an attempt to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the investigation, potentially undermining public trust in the justice system and the rule of law.
Looking ahead to the upcoming anniversary of what he called “the most important election victory in the history of our country,” Trump recounted his electoral success. “With the help of many of you, we won all seven swing states by millions of votes. We won the Electoral College 312 to 226. We won the popular vote for the first time of any Republican in decades.”
The use of the term “most important election victory” implies a level of significance and legitimacy that may not be substantiated by the facts. This language serves to reinforce the narrative of a historic and overwhelming victory, potentially distorting the reader’s perception of the actual election results. Trump’s claim of winning the popular vote is a contradiction as it is a well-known fact that he lost the popular vote in the 2016 election.
Euphemistic language such as “with the help of many of you” presents the election victory as a collective achievement, potentially obscuring the role of specific groups or individuals in influencing the election outcome. This language could be seen as an attempt to legitimize the election results by presenting them as the will of the people, rather than the result of political maneuvering or manipulation.
Israel receives coffins of three deceased hostages. The coffins cross the border into Israel, received in a military ceremony, then sent to the National Center for Forensic Medicine; families will be notified after identification.
The phrase “deceased hostages” implies a certain level of responsibility and wrongdoing on the part of the captors, potentially obscuring the complex dynamics at play in hostage situations. The use of the term “hostages” rather than “detainees” or “prisoners” could be seen as an attempt to frame the individuals in question as innocent victims, thereby legitimizing any actions taken in response to their captivity.
The ceremony of receiving the coffins in a military ceremony and the subsequent notification of families after identification gives a sense of dignity and respect to the deceased. However, this can also be seen as a way to control the narrative and frame the deceased in a specific way, potentially obscuring the circumstances of their death or any wrongdoing on the part of the state.
This is just one of many stories that capture Hauer’s sensitivity and personal connection. For the past five years, as part of the leadership of the OU, I had the honor and blessing of working very closely with him, until he tragically and suddenly passed away on Oct. 14, on the Jewish holiday of Shemini Atzeret. I was his boss, but he was my rebbe.
The language used to describe Hauer’s death — “tragic” and “sudden” — implicitly positions his passing as an unexpected and unfortunate event, framing it in a way that elicits sympathy from the reader. By focusing on Hauer’s “sensitivity and personal connection,” the article presents a positive image of him that may obscure any potential criticisms or controversies associated with his role in the OU.
The author’s statement “I was his boss, but he was my rebbe” creates a contradiction between the formal hierarchical relationship and the personal, spiritual relationship. This contradiction serves to humanize the author and Hauer, presenting their relationship as more than just professional. However, it could also be viewed as an attempt to obscure any potential power dynamics or conflicts of interest within their professional relationship.
But more important than that, I’m someone who I co-founded my college’s first Students for Justice in Palestine. The struggle for ‘Palestine’ is the struggle for dignity. And every single one of us is committed to dignity in Greenpoint has to be committed to dignity in Gaza. Every single one of us who wants justice in Whitestone needs to be fighting for justice in the ‘West Bank’.
The use of the phrase “struggle for ‘Palestine'” presents a specific framing of the conflict, positioning it as a struggle for a particular political outcome rather than a complex geopolitical issue with multiple stakeholders. The repeated use of the word “dignity” serves to legitimize this framing, presenting the struggle for Palestine as a moral imperative rather than a political position.
The speaker’s assertion that everyone committed to dignity and justice locally must also be committed to these values in Gaza and the West Bank implies a universal obligation to support the Palestinian cause. This could be seen as an attempt to equate local social justice issues with the Israel-Palestine conflict, potentially obscuring the distinct complexities and dynamics of each situation.
The Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, and the head of the Prisoners and Missing Persons Command, Maj. Gen. (res.) Nitzan Alon, agreed this evening (Sunday) to end Alon’s assignment, at his request, after about two years in the role and following months of intensive work throughout the war.
The phrase “agreed to end Alon’s assignment” obscures the nature of Alon’s departure from his role, leaving it unclear whether it was a mutual decision or if he was forced out. This level of ambiguity could be seen as an attempt to maintain a sense of stability and order within the military hierarchy, despite potential internal conflicts or disagreements.
The use of the term “intensive work” in reference to Alon’s role during the war could be seen as an attempt to legitimize his actions and present him in a positive light. However, without specific details about what this work entailed, it’s difficult to assess its impact or significance. This lack of transparency could be seen as a way to control the narrative around Alon’s role and the military’s actions during the war.