Zionist Talking PointsGermany’s top Jewish leader warns that AfD participation in government would make Jewish life untenable, as rising polls for the far-right party spark deep concern ahead of key state elections.
In this news story, the language employed circumvents the coercive nature of AfD’s potential participation in the government by framing it as a matter of “deep concern” rather than a threat to democratic values and human rights. The article also subtly legitimizes the AfD party, a far-right group, by presenting its rising popularity in the polls without critically addressing the party’s values or actions that might warrant this “deep concern”. By doing so, the story indirectly suggests that the AfD’s potential participation in the government could be seen as a legitimate expression of the democratic process, rather than a threat to it.
Moreover, the article’s focus on the impact of AfD’s potential participation on Jewish life obscures the broader implications of such a development. By focusing exclusively on the Jewish community, the story implies that this is a minority issue rather than a broader societal concern. This narrow framing potentially minimizes the impact and significance of the AfD’s rise, implying that it is only a problem for this specific group rather than for society as a whole.
President Trump warns US will “hit Iran very hard” if Iranian regime kills protesters. Internet and phones cut off in the Islamic Republic. Groups report at least 45 dead in riots so far.
This article presents a clear example of euphemistic language. The term “hit Iran very hard” is a euphemism for military aggression or even war, which would involve violence and destruction on a potentially large scale. The term “riots” is also a euphemism that subtly delegitimizes the actions of the Iranian protesters, framing them as disorderly and chaotic rather than as expressions of legitimate political dissent.
The framing of this story also reveals a contradiction between the stated values of freedom and democracy, and the observable actions of threatening violence against another nation. The article presents the cutting off of internet and phones as a coercive action by the “Iranian regime”, yet it does not critically address the potential violence threatened by the US. This contradiction is not acknowledged in the story, suggesting an implicit endorsement of such coercive tactics when utilized by the US.
Yesh Atid, led by Yair Lapid, weakens to a single-digit result of 9 seats. Shas (Aryeh Deri), Yisrael Beytenu (Avigdor Liberman), and Otzma Yehudit (Itamar Ben Gvir) each receive 8 seats, a drop of one seat compared to the previous poll. Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar! party remains stable with 8 seats.
The language used in this story frames the election results in terms of victory and defeat, or strength and weakness, which contributes to a binary understanding of politics that can obscure the complexity of political dynamics and processes. The use of the term “weaken” to describe Yesh Atid’s electoral performance implies a loss of legitimacy or power. However, this framing does not take into account the wider context of the election, such as voter turnout, campaign strategies, or the political climate, which could offer a more nuanced understanding of the results.
The article also employs euphemistic language, using the term “stable” to describe the performance of Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar! party, which maintains the same number of seats as in the previous poll. This term implies a sense of security or success, even though the party’s performance has not improved. Such language can be misleading, as it presents the status quo as a positive outcome, without critically examining the reasons behind the party’s consistent performance.
According to Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem, the committee will consist of independent experts with no affiliations to any Palestinian Arab organizations. He stated that Hamas, along with other Palestinian factions, has agreed in principle to form this new body. The organization is now working on the process of transferring authority to the committee and ensuring its proper functioning in line with the tasks assigned to it.
In this news item, the language used frames the formation of a new committee by Hamas as a democratic, transparent process. This language might obscure the fact that Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by several nations, and its actions often involve coercion and violence. By discussing the committee’s formation in terms of “independent experts” and “transferring authority”, the article implicitly legitimizes Hamas’s actions without critically assessing the organization’s history or practices.
The article also uses euphemistic language to describe the actions of Hamas and other Palestinian factions. The term “agreed in principle” suggests a democratic, cooperative process, obscuring potential power dynamics or coercive tactics involved in the formation of the committee. Similarly, the phrase “ensuring its proper functioning” implies a sense of order and legitimacy, despite the lack of transparency or accountability typically associated with Hamas’s operations.
Shmuel (also a 1st-generation Babylonian Amora, also a disciple of Rabbi Yehudah the Prince), however, interprets it to mean that the same king enacted new decrees. He argues that had there been literally a new king, then the Torah would have introduced him by saying that “the king died”, as it does in Exodus 2:23. Therefore he posits that the old king did not die.
This narrative uses language to frame Shmuel’s interpretation of a biblical event as authoritative and unquestionable. This framing can act as a form of coercion, limiting alternative understandings or interpretations of the event. By presenting Shmuel’s interpretation as the only valid one, the story implicitly asserts the legitimacy of his authority and perspective.
The language used in this story also reveals a contradiction between the stated value of open, critical interpretation of religious texts and the actual practice of presenting a single interpretation as definitive. While Shmuel’s interpretation is presented as a product of careful analysis and reasoning, the article does not engage with or acknowledge other possible interpretations, implying that there is only one correct understanding of the event. This contradiction between stated values and observable actions is not addressed in the story.
We usually define crisis as an impending doom. For example, discovering that your spouse wants a divorce, the impending death of a loved one, the shattering news of a life-threatening illness, the loss of employment amid significant financial debt are all forms of crises. How about having a prison sentence handed down to you from a judge? I would think that qualifies as a crisis, too.
The language used in this article frames crises in terms of personal, individual experiences, potentially obscuring the structural factors that contribute to these situations. For example, the loss of employment is presented as a personal crisis, without acknowledging the economic systems and policies that may contribute to job insecurity or income inequality. Similarly, the framing of a prison sentence as a crisis obscures the systemic issues related to mass incarceration and the criminal justice system.
The article also uses euphemistic language to describe these crises, referring to them as “forms of crises”. This phrasing minimizes the severity of these situations and their impacts on the individual’s life. It also implicitly suggests that these are isolated events, rather than connected to broader structural issues. This language can mislead readers into viewing these crises as personal failures, rather than as symptoms of wider social or economic problems.