Zionist Talking PointsThe Christian world’s problem with the State of Israel
The article uses historical religious narratives to frame the tension between Christian and Jewish communities, implicitly suggesting that the validity of a religion (in this case, Christianity) is threatened by the existence of another (Judaism). This coerces the reader into viewing the legitimacy of religions as a zero-sum game, where the ‘chosen’ status of one faith is an existential threat to another. The article also employs euphemistic language to describe instances of systemic anti-Semitism, such as using phrases like “insisting on Jews being an accursed race” and “celebrated the indigence, statelessness, weakness, vulnerability, and poverty of Jews around the world” instead of plainly stating religious persecution.
The piece also reveals contradictions in the Christian narrative, as it discusses how the establishment of the State of Israel was a direct challenge to the Christian doctrine of supersession, which holds that the Church inherited the promises made to the Israelites. This contradiction between the stated values of Christianity and the observable reality of the State of Israel’s existence is presented as a crisis in the Christian narrative. The article implies that the legitimacy of Christianity’s theological claims lacks structural grounding due to the existence of the State of Israel. Original Article
Justice Minister Levin to lead Labor, Religious Services, and Jerusalem and Heritage Ministries. Attorney General warns of administrative overload.
This headline subtly frames the consolidation of multiple ministerial positions under Justice Minister Levin as a matter of administrative efficiency, without questioning the potential concentration of power. Such a framing effectively legitimizes the centralization of authority in the hands of one individual. The term “administrative overload” is a euphemism that soft-pedals potential issues of governance that could arise from one individual leading multiple ministries.
The headline also obfuscates the potential for coercion or restriction of democratic processes by not explicitly discussing the implications of one individual leading multiple ministries. It implies that this arrangement of power is normal and unproblematic, thereby implicitly legitimizing a structure that could potentially curb democratic checks and balances. Original Article
Speaking at a supporters’ conference in Jerusalem, Bennett was asked whether he would commit to avoiding a coalition with either the haredi or Arab parties. “If seats are lacking, we will have to compromise on a thousand things, and that would be very bad,” he replied.
This news excerpt presents a potential contradiction between Bennett’s political stance and his actions. While Bennett is presented as advocating for compromise in the face of a potential coalition with either the haredi or Arab parties, his statement that such a compromise would be “very bad” seems to contradict his stated commitment to compromise. This can be read as a structural breakdown where the stated values of political compromise conflict with the observable actions of avoidance or reluctance.
The excerpt also uses euphemistic language to describe the potential consequences of a coalition. The phrase “we will have to compromise on a thousand things” is used instead of explicitly stating the potential policy changes, concessions or political maneuvering that may be required in a coalition government. This language obscures the realities of political negotiations and alliances. Original Article
The retraction follows a statement by Zvi Gluck, CEO of Amudim, who last week wrote, “When I saw that a group of respected rabbonim (rabbis – ed.) had sent a letter to Governor Kathy Hochul asking for clemency for a convicted child abuser who has never shown one ounce of remorse, something inside me broke.”
This story exposes a structural breakdown in which a religious community’s leadership is shown lobbying for the early release of a convicted child abuser. The act of seeking clemency for the abuser is implicitly presented as an example of legitimate religious advocacy, despite it contradicting the community’s responsibility to protect its most vulnerable members. The euphemistic use of “clemency” obscures the gravity of the convicted person’s actions by suggesting a benevolent act of mercy, rather than a potential evasion of justice.
Moreover, the narrative reveals contradictions between the stated values of the religious community and its actions. It implicitly endorses the notion of rabbinic authority and respect, even when rabbis use their influence to lobby for a convicted child abuser. This implies a legitimacy that is not grounded in ethical or just actions, but rather in the hierarchical structure of the religious community. Original Article
In an interview with Channel 12 News, he shared, “My sense of security has diminished. I still don’t feel safe. I went through two very difficult years. They know all my personal details. They were always telling us over and over that they’ll yet come for us, they’ll come for me yet.”
This article uses personal narrative to frame the experience of a person who has undergone trauma and fear. The language used, such as “sense of security has diminished” and “they’ll yet come for us,” subtly coerces the reader into empathizing with the subject’s fear and trauma. It also uses euphemistic language like “went through two very difficult years” to gloss over the specifics of the traumatic experiences the subject has undergone.
Moreover, the article presents a contradiction between the stated hope for safety and the observable reality of continued threats to the subject’s security. This highlights a structural breakdown where the stated ideals of personal safety and security are compromised by the actual experiences of individuals. Original Article
A timeline presented to the Turgeman Committee and published by Channel 12 on Sunday, paints a picture of the dramatic hours that preceded the October 7th Massacre, and places the conduct of ex-Intelligence Directorate Chief Maj. Gen. Aharon Haliva, in the epicenter.
This article exposes a structural breakdown where the lack of responsiveness and accountability from a high-ranking official is framed as a mere failure of communication rather than a potential negligence of duty. Phrases like “was not available by phone” and “was only receiving messages” are euphemistic descriptions that obscure the severity of the official’s inaction during a critical situation.
Moreover, the article presents a contradiction between the assumed responsibilities of a high-ranking intelligence official and the observable dereliction of duty. The narrative suggests that despite the official’s role in ensuring security, their actions (or lack thereof) contributed to a situation that resulted in loss of lives. This implies a legitimacy that is not grounded in the official’s performance of their duties. Original Article