"The European Union responded to Israel Hayom's inquiry after attorney Yoram Sheftel – representing Justice Minister Yariv Levin in a petition filed by the Zulat Institute before the High Court of Justice – branded the European Union a "hostile" body and accused the bloc of orchestrating a coordinated effort to force Levin out of office."

This opening statement immediately frames a conflict between a known political entity (EU) and a prominent legal figure (Levin's attorney), using strong language like 'hostile' and 'orchestrating' to grab the reader's attention into a dramatic scenario.

""The claims made by a lawyer representing Justice Minister Yariv Levin regarding the EU are entirely false, offensive, and unacceptable," an EU spokesperson said."

The article uses the 'EU spokesperson' as an institutional voice to directly refute claims, leveraging the perceived authority and credibility of a major international body to dismiss the attorney's statements. The expectation is that the reader will give more weight to the EU's response.

""We are proud of our support for civil society organizations across the world and in the region, including those promoting the democratic values that lie at the core of the EU's relationship with the State of Israel, such as freedom of speech and the freedom to protest.""

The EU spokesperson's statement uses the institutional authority of the EU, linking its actions to universally accepted 'democratic values' like freedom of speech and protest. This positions the EU as a guardian of these values, implicitly adding weight to its denial of hostile intent.

"The European Union is hostile. Italy, France, and Spain have imposed an embargo to prevent us from winning a war of survival."

This quote from Sheftel clearly creates an 'us vs. them' dynamic, positioning 'us' (implying Israel or Levin's faction) against a 'hostile' European bloc, engaged in a 'war of survival.' This tribal framing seeks to align the reader with the 'us' side against the perceived external threat.

"he contended that the Zulat Institute draws its backing from foreign governments 'extremely hostile to the State of Israel' – characterizing the legal challenge as an EU-orchestrated bid to remove Levin, one he said 'is working to topple the elected government from power.'"

This statement by Sheftel further solidifies an 'us vs. them' dynamic. It portrays the Zulat Institute and foreign governments (like the EU) as 'extremely hostile' actors working to 'topple the elected government,' framing the conflict as a struggle against external subversion.

"branded the European Union a "hostile" body and accused the bloc of orchestrating a coordinated effort to force Levin out of office."

Attributing the strong terms 'hostile' and 'orchestrating' to a legal representative raises the emotional temperature by suggesting malicious intent and a coordinated attack, likely designed to provoke outrage or indignation from those sympathetic to Levin.

""The claims made by a lawyer representing Justice Minister Yariv Levin regarding the EU are entirely false, offensive, and unacceptable," an EU spokesperson said."

The EU spokesperson's strong emotional language – 'entirely false, offensive, and unacceptable' – is an attempt to shut down discussion and elicit outrage or strong disapproval towards the attorney's statements from the reader. The EU 'expects these comments to be withdrawn immediately,' which creates a sense of urgency for the immediate condemnation of the statements made by the attorney.

"Italy, France, and Spain have imposed an embargo to prevent us from winning a war of survival."

Sheftel's claim of an 'embargo' preventing 'us' from winning a 'war of survival' is designed to evoke fear for the nation's security and survival, thereby increasing emotional investment in the situation.