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.
The framing of this piece subtly legitimizes the potential rise of the AfD party to government participation by presenting it as a mere political shift, while downplaying the potential threat it poses to Jewish life in Germany. The article uses the language of “rising polls” and “key state elections,” which are neutral political terms, to describe the ascent of a far-right party, rather than directly addressing its ideological underpinnings. This presents an implied legitimacy to the AfD party’s potential rise to power, despite the warning from Germany’s top Jewish leader about the party’s potential impact on Jewish life.
The article also reveals a contradiction in the portrayal of the AfD party. On one hand, the party is presented as a legitimate political entity, but on the other, its potential rise to power is deemed as a threat to Jewish life. This discrepancy in the portrayal of the party obscures the potential violence and coercion that could arise from the AfD party’s participation in government. The narrative thus restricts a full understanding of the possible consequences of the party’s ascent to power.
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.
The narrative of this article employs euphemistic language to describe the potential violence of military action. The phrase “hit Iran very hard” is a sanitized way of referring to potential bombings or other forms of military assault. This language downplays the destructive and violent nature of such actions, framing them instead as a justified response to the Iranian regime’s actions.
There is a clear contradiction in the article’s framing of the actions of the US and Iran. The potential violence of the US is presented as a warning or threat, implying legitimacy and justification. In contrast, the actions of the Iranian regime are presented as a suppression of protests, implying violence and coercion. This framing obscures the fact that both actions involve violence and coercion, and it implies legitimacy to the potential violence of the US while delegitimizing the violence of the Iranian regime.
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 article frames the election results as a mere shift in political power without addressing the potential implications of these shifts. The language used, such as “weakens,” “drop,” and “remains stable,” presents a neutral, almost sterile, view of political change, obscuring the potential impacts these shifts could have on policy, governance, and the lives of citizens.
Moreover, the framing of parties losing seats as “weakening” implies a loss of legitimacy or power without discussing the reasons for these losses. This could potentially obscure structural issues, such as voter suppression or systemic bias, that could contribute to these shifts. The narrative presents the legitimacy of these parties as grounded solely in their electoral success, rather than in their policies or actions.
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.
This article uses language that implies legitimacy and independence to describe the formation of a new committee by Hamas. By stating that the committee will consist of “independent experts with no affiliations to any Palestinian Arab organizations,” the narrative suggests that the committee will function independently and objectively. However, this framing does not consider the potential influence of Hamas and other factions in the committee’s formation and functioning.
The article also contradicts itself by stating that Hamas does not intend to assume direct responsibility for the new administrative structure, yet is actively involved in its formation and the transfer of authority. This contradiction obscures the potential influence and control Hamas could exert over the committee, presenting it instead as an independent and impartial entity.
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.
The narrative of this article presents an interpretation of religious texts that potentially obscures the violent and coercive nature of the king’s actions. By focusing on the question of whether the king died or enacted new decrees, the narrative avoids addressing the implications of these decrees for the subjects of the king.
The article also implies legitimacy to the king’s actions by framing them as “new decrees” rather than as potential acts of violence or coercion. This framing restricts a full understanding of the king’s actions and their impacts, presenting them as legitimate exercises of power rather than potential abuses.
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 narrative of this article presents crises in a neutral, even potentially positive, light, obscuring the violence and coercion inherent in many of the scenarios it describes. For example, the framing of a prison sentence as a “crisis” that one can make the best of, ignores the systemic violence and restriction of freedoms inherent in the prison system.
The narrative also implies legitimacy to the crises described, presenting them as individual challenges to overcome rather than structural issues that need to be addressed. This obscures the systemic and structural factors that contribute to these crises, such as the criminal justice system or economic inequality, presenting them instead as personal or individual issues.