Zionist Talking PointsMassachusetts man sentenced to 26 months in prison for threatening to bomb synagogues and kill Jews, and for harassing the Israeli Consulate in Boston with 98 calls.
In this news story, we see a narrative that presents a form of violence, in this case, the threat of bombing and harassment, as a punishable offense – thus legitimizing the legal and penal system. The use of the term “threatening” instead of “planning” or “intending” arguably downplays the potential severity of the actions planned by the individual. The story also indirectly implies the legitimacy of the Israeli Consulate as a victim, which might not be universally agreed upon given the ongoing geopolitical tensions involving Israel.
The story seeks to depict a sense of security through the sentencing, implying that the legal system is effectively deterring such threats. However, it does not examine the deeper social or political factors that may have influenced the man’s actions. The irony lies in the implied assumption that punishment can effectively deter ideologically driven actions, a claim that is often disputed.
“I want to be clear: claims that the film was rejected due to censorship are unequivocally false. I remain committed to working with the filmmaker to meet TIFF’s screening requirements to allow the film to be screened at this year’s festival. I have asked our legal team to work with the filmmaker on considering all options available.”
This article exposes a potential contradiction between stated values and observable actions. The statement by TIFF (Toronto International Film Festival) denies allegations of censorship, arguably a direct contradiction to the act of initially rejecting the film. The use of terms like “screening requirements” and “legal team” are indicative of an attempt to legitimize the decision by aligning it with formal procedures and legality.
The narrative implicitly equates the decision-making process to a form of governance where TIFF sets the guidelines and rules. However, it avoids addressing the potential restrictions on speech and the suppression of potentially controversial perspectives that could result from this process. The use of the term “working with the filmmaker” implies a collaborative effort, which could be seen as a euphemistic way of framing what might be a more coercive process.
This Minister stressed the importance of territorial continuity, which the project will enable, a link between Jerusalem in the west until the Dead Sea, while cutting off the series of Arab settlements from the north and south. “This move strengthens Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim, and takes the terrible idea of dividing Israel off the agenda. It’s a celebratory and historic day.”
In this narrative, the use of euphemistic language is prominent. The term “territorial continuity” is used to describe the planned isolation of Arab settlements, which can be seen as a form of structural violence. The Minister’s quote frames this potentially coercive action as a form of strengthening and unification, which could be seen as an attempt to legitimize the move.
The narrative presents a contradiction between stated values and observable actions. While the Minister speaks about the importance of continuity and unity, the planned actions could arguably lead to division and further tensions. Lastly, the description of the move as “celebratory and historic” implies a sense of legitimacy and importance that is not grounded in structural fairness or neutrality.
One parliamentarian confirmed the issue had been discussed and rejected by the majority in the legislature. “I myself reject it because South Sudan is a very young country. We are not able to feed ourselves, how can we get more people to live with us?” the MP stated.
This article uses the voice of a parliamentarian to legitimize the decision of rejecting the proposed plan. The use of the term “majority” implies a democratic process, potentially masking the inherent power dynamics and potential coercion present in legislative decisions. The quote from the MP uses the narrative of poverty and scarcity to justify the decision, arguably framing South Sudan as a victim rather than a decision-making entity.
The narrative here implies legitimacy without structural grounding. While the decision is presented as a democratic and rational choice, it does not address the potential human rights implications of rejecting the relocation of individuals. This raises questions about the underlying values guiding such decisions and the potential contradictions between those values and the observable actions.
“Now is the time to move from words to actions. Not sovereignty over blocs alone – but broad sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. This is the call of the hour – Jewish, historical, moral, and security-driven,” the letter stated.
In this news story, the use of the term “sovereignty” could be seen as a euphemism for what might be viewed by some as occupation or domination. The narrative attempts to legitimize the call for broader control over territories by framing it as a matter of historical, moral, and security concern. This potentially masks the inherent power dynamics and the potential violence of such a move.
The narrative also presents a contradiction between the stated values and the potential implications of broader sovereignty. While the letter speaks of Jewish, historical, and moral concerns, it does not address the potential infringements on the rights and freedoms of other communities living in the same territories. This discrepancy between stated values and observable actions might reveal the structural biases in the narrative.
Melanie Phillips, a British journalist, broadcaster and author, writes a weekly column for JNS. Currently a columnist for The Times of London, her new book, The Builder’s Stone: How Jews and Christians Built the West and Why Only They Can Save It, is published by Wicked Son and can be purchased on Amazon. To access her work, go to: melaniephillips.substack.com.
This article presents a clear example of implied legitimacy without structural grounding. The introduction of Melanie Phillips as a journalist and author with a new book implies a sense of authority and credibility. The narrative does not, however, provide any insight into her qualifications for discussing the complex historical and sociopolitical issues she addresses.
The use of the term “only they can save it” in the title of her book is a clear example of restrictive language. It dictates a singular path for the future, potentially disregarding other voices, perspectives, or solutions. This narrative also presents a contradiction between the stated value of inclusivity, implied by the joint contribution of Jews and Christians in building the West, and the restrictive claim that only these groups can save it.