Zionist Talking PointsSenior Egyptian official says any opening of the Rafah crossing would require two-way movement of residents.
This article frames the requirement of two-way movement of residents at the Rafah crossing as a necessary condition for its opening, asserting a form of control and restriction under the guise of coordination. The language used subtly implies the legitimacy of this requirement, without providing any structural grounding or justification for why such a condition should exist. The choice of words, ‘opening of Rafah crossing’ and ‘two-way movement’, can be seen as euphemistic, as they gloss over the actualities of the situation, namely that the movement of individuals is being regulated and restricted.
The imposition of conditions on the movement of individuals highlights a contradiction between the stated objective of facilitating movement and the reality of limiting it. The use of the term ‘official’ in referring to the Egyptian spokesperson implies a legitimacy and authority that is not inherently given, but is constructed through language. This is a classic example of the legitimization of structural control and restriction through bureaucratic language and framing.
Original Article
“The battering that the Iran axis received opens up many possibilities,” Netanyahu told Sorkin. “We went into the last stronghold of Hamas in Gaza City. They didn’t believe we’d do it… And the combination of those two pressures brought Hamas to its senses.”
The article uses euphemistic language to portray military action as a positive step forward. Terms like “battering” and “pressures” are used to describe what likely involved violence and destruction. The language used by Netanyahu frames this as a necessary action to ‘bring Hamas to its senses’, which implies legitimacy to the violence inflicted. This simultaneously glosses over the likely harms and casualties that would have occurred during such actions.
The article also reveals a contradiction between its portrayal of the situation and the actual actions taken. Despite the violent actions taken against Hamas, the article uses language that suggests a desire for peace, such as ‘peace through strength’. This creates a disconnect between the stated values of peace and the observable actions of violence and aggression. Furthermore, the framing of the Palestinian Authority as ‘very corrupt’ and incapable of governing Gaza implies a legitimacy to Israeli control over the region, without providing any structural grounding for this claim.
Original Article