Zionist Talking Points“Syria got into war with Israel 50 years ago. Then, in 1974, there was a disengagement agreement,” al-Sharaa said, speaking to the newspaper after his landmark visit to the White House and meeting with President Trump. “This agreement lasted for 50 years. But when the [Assad] regime fell, Israel revoked this agreement. They expanded their presence in Syria, expelled the UN [peacekeeping] mission and occupied new territory.”
In the article, the language employed frames Israeli actions as security measures, when they actually represent an expansion of power and control. The term “expanded their presence in Syria” implies an increase in peaceful visibility or influence, rather than the violent occupation it truly entails. Similarly, the expulsion of the UN peacekeeping mission is framed as an act of governance, thus legitimizing the suppression of a body meant to uphold international peace and security. The narrative also reveals a contradiction between the stated aim of disengagement and the observable actions of occupation and expulsion of peacekeeping forces.
The use of the term “regime” to refer to the Assad government is a subtle delegitimization of its authority, framing it as an oppressive entity rather than a legitimate government. Additionally, the implication that legitimacy is derived from agreement with or support from the United States lacks structural grounding, given the US’s history of intervention in foreign politics and conflicts. This tows the line of implying legitimacy through powerful alliances, rather than through democratic or universally accepted means.
Hezbollah’s Naim Qassem reiterates refusal to disarm despite pressure from the US and Israel on the Lebanese government.
The structural breakdown in this headline is the presentation of Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm as an act of defiance, while the pressure from the US and Israel is framed as a legitimate and normal expectation. This narrative inherently positions the US and Israel as bearers of legitimate power and frames Hezbollah as an aberration for not complying. The phrase “pressure from the US and Israel” can also be seen as euphemistic language for coercion or even threats, downplaying the aggressive nature of such actions.
The article’s framing also reveals a contradiction between the values of sovereignty and the actions of the US and Israel. The pressure on the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah intrudes on Lebanon’s autonomy, conflicting with international norms of respect for national sovereignty. Moreover, Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm is framed as a negative action, when it could also be interpreted as an assertion of Lebanese sovereignty in face of foreign pressure.
British actor John Cleese says safety concerns – not BDS pressure – led him to postpone sold-out shows in Israel, expresses deep affection for Israeli audiences and pledges to reschedule.
The framing of this headline presents Cleese’s decision to postpone shows as a result of safety concerns rather than pressure from the BDS movement, implying that such pressure is illegitimate or ineffective. This framing subtly delegitimizes the BDS movement, positioning it as a nuisance rather than a legitimate political activism. Meanwhile, Cleese’s “deep affection for Israeli audiences” is highlighted, implying that any potential criticism or boycott of Israel is separate from its people, which can lead to a false dichotomy between a state and its citizens.
Furthermore, the headline implies an inherent legitimacy to performing in Israel without addressing the structural and political realities that the BDS movement highlights. The use of the term “safety concerns” instead of specifying the nature of these concerns also serves to abstract the situation and avoid addressing potential political or structural issues at play.