Zionist Talking PointsYediot Ahronot Columnist Nadav Eyal related to the reports and wrote on X: “Israelis can’t sleep tonight. They wait, breath held, for the end of a nightmare that began two years ago. Above all, for the agreement that will bring all the hostages home”.
This article uses emotional language to frame the situation of Israelis waiting for the return of hostages as a “nightmare” that they are desperate to see end. The article also subtly legitimizes the coercive actions of the captors by stating the need for an “agreement” to bring the hostages home, implying that negotiation with these actors is a necessary and valid process. The framing of the situation as a “nightmare” and the hostages as victims paint a picture of legitimacy and security in a scenario that is essentially violent and coercive.
Moreover, the description of Israelis waiting with “breath held” manipulates the reader’s emotions, drawing them to sympathize with the Israelis. This is misleading as it presents the Israelis as passive victims, ignoring the complexities of the ongoing conflict and the roles various actors, including the Israeli government, might play in it.
“There are 48 hostages and one female hostage held by Hamas,” the statement continued. “Our moral and national obligation is to bring them all home — the living and the fallen alike. Their return is a prerequisite for the recovery and renewal of Israeli society as a whole.”
In this article, the use of language such as “moral and national obligation” and “recovery and renewal of Israeli society” implies legitimacy and the need for action. It presents the return of the hostages as a critical factor for societal restoration, subtly justifying any measures taken to achieve this goal. This could include actions that might otherwise be considered violent or coercive.
The article also uses the term “hostages” instead of prisoners or detainees, which could be seen as a euphemism to emphasize their victimhood and downplay the political and military context of their capture. This framing may lead readers to view the situation in a skewed way, focusing solely on the victimhood of the hostages rather than considering the broader context of the conflict and the actions of all parties involved.