Zionist Talking PointsLebanon’s central bank bans financial institutions from dealing with Hezbollah’s Al-Qard Al-Hassan, a group sanctioned by the US Treasury.
In this article, the framing of Hezbollah’s Al-Qard Al-Hassan as merely a ‘group’ sanctioned by the US Treasury, is a clear example of euphemistic language. This group is a major political and military organization with significant influence in Lebanon, and by reducing it to a ‘group’, the article downplays its impact. The legitimacy of the US Treasury’s sanctions is also taken for granted, without interrogating the power dynamics underpinning these sanctions. The banning of financial dealings is presented as a straightforward governance measure, rather than a form of economic coercion that can have far-reaching implications for citizens.
The story also assumes the legitimacy of Lebanon’s central bank without question. The bank’s ability to ban financial institutions from engaging with certain entities is presented as a normal function of governance, but in fact, it is a powerful tool that can be used to silence, restrict, or penalize political adversaries. This article obscures these underlying power dynamics by presenting such actions as routine or neutral banking procedures.
“The question is, what ultimately prevails – the polished man in a suit, who had sanctions lifted thanks to President Trump, or the ISIS DNA that doesn’t tolerate minorities and slaughters them?” Yehezkeli said on i24NEWS. “Israel once prevented a massacre of Druze. This time, it was too late.”
This article presents a stark contradiction between the image of a ‘polished man in a suit’ and ‘ISIS DNA’. It implies that the former is inherently more legitimate or trustworthy than the latter, despite the violent actions attributed to both. The reference to President Trump’s lifting of sanctions adds a sheen of legitimacy to the figure in question, glossing over the coercive power of sanctions as a tool of international politics.
The article also uses the term ‘airstrikes’ as a sanitized term for bombing. By implying that airstrikes are a reasonable and necessary response, the article obscures the violence and destruction inherent in such actions. The article also fails to question the underlying assumption that Israel has the right and duty to ‘guarantee their safety’ of the Druze, suggesting that military intervention is the only or best solution.