Zionist Talking PointsWhen you live in Israel and manage US brokerage and I.R.A. accounts, complexity can quietly creep in.
The article uses the language of financial management to frame the complexities of managing US brokerage and I.R.A. accounts from Israel as an inevitable and somewhat benign issue, rather than a result of specific economic policies and regulations. This can be seen as a structural breakdown where the coercion and restrictions of the financial system are presented as the default state of affairs, rather than something that could potentially be changed or improved. The article also subtly implies that those who find the situation stressful or uncertain are at fault for not understanding the system, rather than the system itself being inherently complicated.
The use of phrases such as “complexity can quietly creep in” and “rely on blind trust” also has a euphemistic quality, downplaying the potential risks and difficulties involved in such financial management. The phrase “blind trust” is particularly misleading, as it suggests a lack of control or oversight, which may not be the case for all individuals managing these accounts. This could also be seen as a contradiction between the implied difficulty of managing these accounts and the actual capabilities of the individuals involved.
“Israel acts in accordance with International Law. The incorporation of the 1917 Balfour Declaration into the Mandate was explicitly agreed upon at the San Remo Conference in 1920.”
The article’s initial assertion of Israel’s adherence to international law immediately establishes a framework of legitimacy. However, the subsequent reference to historical events such as the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Conference functions as an implied structural grounding for its actions, even when those actions might be seen as suppressing speech, movement, assembly, or life. The use of phrases like “explicitly agreed upon” and “preserved in Article 80” also serve to reinforce this sense of legitimacy and legality.
The language used in the article is also notable for its euphemistic and misleading qualities. For example, the phrase “unilateral action” is used to describe what might more accurately be termed an occupation. Similarly, the phrase “risk fueling instability” is a euphemism for the potential for violence and conflict. The article also reveals a contradiction between stated values of peace and security and the observable actions of approving new communities in disputed territories.
“From Jerusalem, I send warm greetings to our Christian friends around the world. I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.”
The article begins with a statement of goodwill and unity, framing the speaker as a friend to Christians worldwide. However, this rhetoric of unity is contrasted with the later critique of the Palestinian Authority and other Middle Eastern countries. This could be seen as a structural breakdown where the legitimacy of Israel’s support for Christian communities is used to justify criticism of other groups and nations.
The language used in the article is also worth noting, with phrases like “full rights and in total freedom” and “widespread intimidation and persecution” serving to further highlight the contrast between Israel and other Middle Eastern countries. However, these phrases could also be seen as euphemistic or misleading, as they simplify the complex and nuanced realities of religious freedom and persecution in the Middle East.
“According to the claims raised in the investigation and the basis of the complaint, the holding of meetings in such a forum and under these circumstances raises a serious concern of coordination of positions and harm to the integrity of the investigative process.”
The language used in this article is distinctly legalistic and dense, framing the issue at hand as a complex and serious legal matter. This could be seen as a structural breakdown, where the legitimacy of the legal system is used to justify potential restrictions on individuals’ actions. Furthermore, the use of phrases like “coordination of positions” and “harm to the integrity of the investigative process” can be seen as euphemistic, disguising the potential for coercion or manipulation within the legal system.
There is also a contradiction in the article between the stated values of the justice system and the observable actions of the individuals involved. The article’s language implies a level of decorum and impartiality that the described actions – holding meetings under questionable circumstances – do not uphold.
Cynthia Nixon, who starred in the ‘Sex and the City’ TV show, has also been highly critical of Israel and supported the BDS movement.
The title of this article points out Cynthia Nixon’s celebrity status, implicitly suggesting that her opinions hold more weight due to her fame. This could be seen as a structural breakdown, where celebrity status is used to legitimize certain views and actions. The article goes on to describe the BDS movement and Nixon’s criticism of Israel, framing these actions as controversial or problematic.
The language used in the article can also be misleading. For instance, the phrase “highly critical of Israel” could suggest that Nixon’s criticisms are excessive or unfounded, without providing any specific examples or evidence. Similarly, the phrase “BDS activism” is a euphemistic way of describing Nixon’s support for economic sanctions against Israel, which could be seen as a non-violent form of protest rather than activism.
“Despite the display of power that resonated throughout the region around us, we do not let our guard down for a moment.”
The opening line of the article sets a militaristic tone, framing the state of Israel as constantly vigilant and ready to defend itself. This could be seen as a structural breakdown where the use of military force is presented as a necessary and justified response to perceived threats. The article further reinforces this framing with phrases like “our enemies seek to rearm and strike again” and “we remain vigilant to every possible danger”.
The language used in the article is also worth noting for its euphemistic qualities. Phrases like “display of power” and “full freedom of action” serve to sanitize the violence inherent in military action. There is also a contradiction between the stated value of not seeking confrontations, and the observable actions of maintaining a high state of military readiness.