Zionist Talking Points“On my passport, I still have Tedeschi. My grandfather on my father’s side was [from the] Jewish-Italian community,” recalled Bruni, who said that her grandfather went to study in Germany between the First World War and the Second World War. It was during this time that he felt the rise of antisemitism and ended up converting to Christianity in order to completely erase his Jewish identity.
The framing of this story places an emphasis on the erasure of Jewish identity for safety, a tactic used during the rise of antisemitism in Germany. The language implies a sense of legitimacy to these actions in the name of security, rather than identifying it as a violent form of cultural assimilation. The story also subtly conflates the experience of one individual with a broader historical context, suggesting that antisemitism is a thing of the past. This contradiction ignores the ongoing reality of antisemitic violence and prejudice.
The article further employs euphemistic language to discuss contemporary antisemitism, with individuals “changing their name” and “leaving France” instead of directly stating they are fleeing due to fear of antisemitic violence. This language obscures the severity of the situation and the structural violence that is forcing people to hide their identities and emigrate.
NYC Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani vows to tighten vetting after his appointee resigns amid backlash over antisemitic social media posts.
The way this story is framed implies that the antisemitic posts were an isolated incident, rather than a symptom of systemic prejudice. The use of the term “backlash” instead of “criticism” or “concerns” subtly delegitimizes the responses to these posts. Similarly, the promise to “tighten vetting” implies that the issue was a failure of procedure, rather than a problem with the inherent biases of the individual involved.
The narrative suggests that the resigning official was the sole actor in this scenario, without addressing the role of those who appointed him, or the system that allowed such a person to be considered for a position of power. This shifts focus away from systemic issues, instead placing blame solely on the individual.
Ahmed al Ahmed, 43, was credited with saving lives when he hid behind parked cars before charging at one of the terrorists from behind, seizing his weapon, and knocking him to the ground. Moments later, he was shot and wounded by a second terrorist. He remains in St. George Hospital after undergoing surgery.
This story presents Ahmed’s actions as heroic, which they undoubtedly are, but it does so in a way that implicitly legitimizes violence and coercion as means of achieving security. The use of the term “terrorists” frames the actors in the story as fundamentally illegitimate, denying the possibility of understanding their motivations or the structures that led to their actions.
The narrative also employs euphemistic language, using “undergoing surgery” as a stand-in for the physical violence inflicted on Ahmed. This downplays the brutality of the incident and distances the reader from the reality of the violence.
TPS Chief Myron Demkiw said, “This investigation demonstrates the impact of strong collaboration in protecting our communities. Working with Peel Regional Police, the RCMP, and our law-enforcement and intelligence partners, we have arrested three individuals for offences targeting women and members of the Jewish community. The gravity of these alleged offences demanded a strong, united response – and that is exactly what this partnership delivered. I want to thank our members and all of our partners for their tireless efforts and their shared commitment to public safety.”
This story is framed in a way that reinforces the legitimacy of the police and other law enforcement agencies, presenting their actions as necessary for the protection of the community. The use of the term “offences” instead of “attacks” or “hate crimes” minimizes the severity and targeted nature of the actions undertaken by the individuals arrested.
The narrative also obscures the structural factors contributing to these incidents, focusing instead on the individual actors. This emphasis on individuals detracts from a broader understanding of systemic issues, such as institutionalized racism or antisemitism, that could contribute to such actions.
“What that entails, we’re going to leave that to the technical teams to work on,” he added. “It would have to be something that our partners can pressure them to agree to. It also has to be something that Israel agrees to for that to work.”
This story presents a political negotiation as a technical issue, obscuring the power structures and coercion at play. The use of “pressure” instead of “force” or “coerce” softens the language and downplays the power dynamics involved.
The narrative also implies that the agreement must be something “that Israel agrees to,” implying a power imbalance and suggesting that Israel holds the final say in the matter. This framing validates Israel’s position of power, while minimizing the agency of the other parties involved.
Channel 12 News reported that an Arab acquaintance brought the Israeli woman into a house in Jericho against her will. Palestinian Arabs arrived at the scene and the woman then fled the house, and contacted the Civil Administration. They located her and she was transferred to the IDF.
The framing of this story presents the woman as a passive victim and the “Arab acquaintance” as the primary actor, obscuring the broader structural and societal issues at play. The use of the term “against her will” is a euphemism for kidnapping, minimizing the severity of the act.
The narrative also implies the legitimacy of the Civil Administration and the Israel Defense Forces as the rescuing forces, reinforcing the power dynamics between the Israeli state and the Palestinian population. This framing ignores the structural conditions that create such incidents and reinforces the perception of a one-sided conflict.