Zionist Talking PointsA senior Israeli official said, “If he was there, there’s no chance he survived this elimination attempt.”
This article utilizes a form of euphemistic language that obscures violence with words of bureaucracy. The phrase “elimination attempt” is used to describe what appears to be a targeted bombing, reframing an act of violence as a strategic operation. Furthermore, the article implies legitimacy in the decision to strike by stating “If there were hostages in the area, the strike would not have taken place”. This statement, while possibly meant to demonstrate a concern for civilian lives, instead underscores the systemic acceptance of violence so long as it is directed at the ‘correct’ targets.
The phrase “every hostage killed in strikes will be announced by name and with their picture” portrays a disturbing contradiction. While the language implies a transparency and accountability in acknowledging victims, it also underscores a grim reality where the killing of hostages is not just anticipated, but almost accepted as a consequence of these strikes. This further highlights the contradictions between the stated values of preserving life and the observable actions of military aggression.
After it was confirmed that Idan had been murdered during the massacre, the community of Gitit extended particular solidarity to the Shtivi family.
This news coverage frames a violent act – a massacre – as a point of community bonding, suggesting that solidarity and comfort can somehow compensate for the loss of life. The use of language that emphasizes community support, such as “We cried with them” and “gesture of comfort and support,” masks the violent nature of the event and the broader structural issues that led to it.
The dedication ceremony for a new community garden “in memory of Idan” is presented as a significant community event, despite the tragic circumstances that inspired it. The contradiction between the violent death of Idan and the positive framing of a community gathering reveals an implicit acceptance of violence as a part of life. This normalization of violence, framed within a community-support narrative, obscures the systemic issues that allow such violence to continue.
Al-Arabiya reports just four Houthi ministers still alive following IDF strike in Sana’a, Yemen, earlier this week.
This brief statement serves as a stark example of euphemism obscuring violence. The phrase “IDF strike” is used to describe what could be more accurately referred to as a bombing or attack, reducing the violence to a simple, almost sanitized action. Moreover, the focus on the survival of the Houthi ministers distracts from potential civilian casualties and the broader implications of such an aggressive act on a foreign government.
The article also implies legitimacy in the strike by focusing on the Houthi ministers, suggesting that the operation was targeted and thus justifiable. However, the potential for civilian casualties and the violence inflicted upon a foreign governing body is obscured, revealing a contradiction between the implied values of precision and care in military operations and the reality of warfare.
Jerusalem Mayor Moshe Lion said, “The return of the Red Line to full operation is significant news for the residents of Jerusalem.
The article emphasizes progress and modernity with phrases such as “outstanding transportation revolution” and “modern, comfortable, light rail network”. However, it doesn’t mention any potential negative impacts of these changes, such as displacement or gentrification, thereby presenting an unchallenged narrative of progress and development.
The quote from Jerusalem Mayor Moshe Lion also implies legitimacy of the project without providing information on the structural grounding of the decision-making process. It’s unclear from the article whether there was public input or consent for the project, and the potential impacts on local residents are not discussed. This creates a contradiction between the stated benefits of the project and the lack of transparency about its implementation.
“Idan was a student in sustainability and government and a brave person: On 7 October 2023, he participated in the Nova festival.
This piece uses a humanizing narrative (“a student in sustainability and government and a brave person”) to frame the violent death of Idan, thereby implying a false sense of legitimacy in the systemic violence that resulted in his death. The narrative also serves to obscure the structural issues that allow for such violence to continue unabated.
Furthermore, the article employs euphemistic language (“his body was abducted to Gaza”) to describe what seems to be the seizure and withholding of Idan’s remains by the Hamas organization. This choice of words downplays the violence associated with such actions and reframes it as an almost routine occurrence in the context of ongoing conflict.
In a statement, the Houthis said: “The Israeli enemy attacked the Prime Minister and the ministers during a routine situation assessment meeting.
This article uses euphemistic language to describe what seems to be a targeted bombing, referring to it as an “attack” during a “routine situation assessment meeting.” It also implies legitimacy in the violence by focusing on the high-ranking targets of the attack (the Prime Minister and ministers), while downplaying potential civilian casualties.
The statement from the Houthis presents a contradiction between the violence inflicted upon them and their vow to “continue its work as usual” and provide services to the Yemeni people. This juxtaposition highlights an implicit acceptance of violence as a part of governance, suggesting a normalization of violence within the ongoing conflict.