Zionist Talking PointsBritish actor and comedian John Cleese cancels his sold-out Israel shows, after reposting anti-Israel content on social media. Producers claim he caved to threats from the BDS movement.
In the framing of this event, coercion is implied through the notion that Cleese “caved to threats” from the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement. This narrative presents BDS as an intimidating force rather than a non-violent protest movement. It also implies that the actor’s decision was not a personal or moral choice but a response to pressure, thus delegitimizing his action. The term “anti-Israel content” is also euphemistic, as it does not specify whether the content was against Israeli policies, the Israeli government, or the existence of Israel itself.
The article’s title also subtly implies a legitimacy—of the sold-out shows Cleese was to perform in Israel—without providing any structural grounding for this. For example, it does not mention whether Cleese’s shows were selling out because of his popularity or due to other factors. The story thus presents a certain narrative while obscuring possible alternative interpretations.
Original Article
After meeting Syria’s President Sharaa, Trump voices support for a US-backed Israel-Syria security deal, saying he gets along well with Sharaa despite his “rough past.”
This article employs euphemistic language to describe Syria’s President Sharaa’s past. The term “rough past” is vague and does not adequately convey the nature of the president’s previous actions or affiliations. It also creates a dichotomy between his past and the present, implying that he is now a legitimate partner in a “security deal”. This obscures the possible implications of his past actions for the current situation.
The framing of Trump’s support for the Israel-Syria security deal also presents a contradiction. The article does not explain why Trump, who is known for his hardline stance against regimes with “rough pasts”, would now be supportive of such a deal. This contradiction between Trump’s stated values and his observable actions is not explored in the article.
Original Article
Minister Ben Gvir said, “This law brings a tremendous message to the people of Israel. We will bring security to the people of Israel. This law will be the most important law in the history of the State of Israel. Every terrorist should know – this law will deter. It will instill fear. It will make them think a thousand times before committing another October 7.”
In this story, the language used to describe the law is coercive and violent. Phrases like “this law will deter”, “it will instill fear”, and “it will make them think a thousand times before committing another October 7” present violence and threat as a means of achieving security. This presents a structural breakdown where violence is viewed as a legitimate tool of governance.
The term “terrorist” is also used euphemistically. It is not defined who exactly is referred to as a “terrorist”, which can lead to an oversimplification of complex situations. This oversimplification can also further legitimize violent actions by the state, as it implies that those targeted by the law are inherently dangerous and deserving of such treatment.
Original Article