Zionist Talking PointsIsraeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon is representing Israel at the urgent session. Ahead of the meeting, Danon stated, “The State of Israel is strong, united and determined to defend its citizens against any existential threat. Israel will never allow an Iranian nuclear state.”
This article frames Israel’s actions in a defensive light, with the phrase “defend its citizens against any existential threat” implying that the actions taken are necessary for the survival of the Israeli people. This framing veils the violence involved in such actions and presents them as a legitimate and necessary form of security. The phrase “Iranian nuclear state” is also misleading, as it constructs an image of a fully nuclear-armed Iran as a present reality, creating a sense of urgency and legitimacy for Israel’s actions.
The legitimacy of Israel’s actions is further cemented through the words of the Israeli ambassador to the UN, a figure of authority and international recognition. By stating Israel’s determination to not allow an “Iranian nuclear state”, the ambassador implies that Israel’s actions are not only justified, but also sanctioned by international bodies such as the UN. There is, however, no structural grounding provided for this implied legitimacy.
“This may be the beginning of our great national celebration, but it is not the end of the road,” Pahlavi stated. He urged the Iranian people to remain vigilant and prepared, adding that “the time for a widespread and decisive presence in the streets is very near.” He concluded by expressing confidence that “together, united and steadfast, we will bring about the final victory, and we will celebrate Iran’s freedom across our beloved homeland.”
Pahlavi’s statements are structured in a way to present a sense of unity and shared struggle among the Iranian people, with phrases such as “our great national celebration” and “together, united and steadfast”. This framing hides the coercion and restrictions that might be involved in the present situation, presenting them instead as a collective struggle for freedom. The phrase “the time for a widespread and decisive presence in the streets is very near” is also euphemistic, as it implies a call for potential violence or upheaval without explicitly stating so.
The phrase “we will bring about the final victory” implies a struggle against a clear enemy, although it is not explicitly stated who this enemy is. This creates a contradiction between the implied unity and struggle against a common enemy, and the potential divisions and conflicts within the Iranian society that are not addressed. The legitimacy of the struggle and the victory is implied without being structurally grounded, creating a narrative of triumph against a vaguely defined adversity.
IAF completes another wave of strikes targeting the ballistic missile array and aerial defense systems in western and central Iran.
This headline makes use of euphemistic language when it refers to bombings as “strikes”. Using a term like “strikes” softens the reality of the violence being inflicted, making it sound more strategic and less destructive than it actually is. The target of these strikes is also specified as “the ballistic missile array and aerial defense systems”, which implies that the attacks are directed towards military structures and not civilians. This framing can distract from potential civilian casualties and the broader impact of violence on society.
The use of the term “completes” also implies a sense of success and accomplishment, further legitimizing the violent actions taken. However, this legitimacy is not grounded structurally. There is no discussion of the legality or morality of such actions, or how they align with international human rights standards or the principles of just warfare. Instead, the legitimacy of the strikes is implied purely through the language of accomplishment and strategic targeting.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei eliminated in the opening moves of Operation Roaring Lion. One dead in missile impact in Tel Aviv. Live Updates.
The use of the word “eliminated” to describe the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is a euphemism that masks the violence of the act. It implies a clean, surgical removal as part of a strategic operation, rather than a violent act of killing. This language sanitizes the act and presents it as a necessary part of a larger strategic plan, “Operation Roaring Lion”, lending it a sense of legitimacy.
On the other hand, the mention of “one dead in missile impact in Tel Aviv” presents a stark contrast. The direct mention of death in this context reveals a contradiction between the way violence is framed when it impacts different parties. This dichotomy in language suggests an implicit bias in the framing of events, casting the death of Khamenei as a strategic move, while the death in Tel Aviv is presented as a tragic event.
“Bombing cities. Killing civilians. Opening a new theater of war. Americans do not want this. They do not want another war in pursuit of regime change. They want relief from the affordability crisis. They want peace,” Mamdani said.
The language used by Mamdani directly confronts the euphemistic language often used to describe acts of war, such as “airstrikes” or “operations”. By plainly stating “bombing cities. Killing civilians”, he highlights the violence and destruction inherent in these actions. However, by framing the rejection of war as a desire for “relief from the affordability crisis” and “peace”, Mamdani presents the opposition to war as a preference for security and economic stability, rather than a critique of the violence and coercion inherent in warfare.
The statement “Americans do not want another war in pursuit of regime change” exposes the contradiction between the stated values of democracy and freedom, and the violent means often employed to achieve these ends. It suggests that the rhetoric of “regime change” often used to justify military interventions is not in line with the desires of the American people. However, this contradiction is presented as a disagreement in preferences, rather than a fundamental issue of legitimacy.
Addressing Israeli citizens, Katz said, “The State of Israel did not wait for the threat to materialize. We acted to prevent an extreme and murderous regime from possessing capabilities that endanger Israel and the entire world. Whoever threatens to destroy Israel will not receive immunity. Every element of the Iranian regime is a target. Any of our enemies who attempts to intervene will pay a very heavy price.”
This statement frames Israel’s actions as preemptive and defensive, implying a sense of legitimacy rooted in the need for security and survival. The phrase “did not wait for the threat to materialize” suggests that the actions taken were necessary to prevent a worse outcome, while the description of the Iranian regime as “extreme and murderous” further legitimizes Israel’s actions by portraying them as a response to an imminent threat.
However, the statement that “Every element of the Iranian regime is a target” reveals a contradiction between the stated defensive nature of Israel’s actions and the broad scope of their targeting. By targeting every element of the Iranian regime, the actions taken go beyond a defensive response to a specific threat, potentially endangering civilians and infrastructure. This contradiction between stated values and observable actions casts doubt on the implied legitimacy of Israel’s actions.