“I think it’d be a big mistake,” Mr. Biden told “60 Minutes” on CBS in a conversation taped on Thursday and aired on Sunday night. “Look, what happened in Gaza, in my view, is Hamas and the extreme elements of Hamas don’t represent all the Palestinian people. And I think that it would be a mistake for Israel to occupy Gaza again.” But “taking out the extremists” there, he added, “is a necessary requirement.”
I'm not sure how anyone is taking this as a controversial take. Logistically, practically, and the urgent bloodthirst for revenge make this fucking hard to do. But this seems to me to be a pretty even keeled non polarizing take on a complex situation where there is justification for military action against a terrorist group, and that military action must be measured against the safety and needs of a civilian population.
I think that is exactly what we want to bring up from the US. We fucked up our response to 9/11. We have some perspective on pushing for restraint for Israel reacting to their 9/11. Even if we avoid moralizing on civilian life, we are least can talk about the cost of perpetual war and occupation.
That's the difference between terrorism vs murder. Public and violent carnage on a small scale can cause terror if highly visible, and if the objective is to make it visible by the attacker.
This is where I am a bit curious. In a world where we didn't have user tracking and just did ads the old fashioned way like television via over the air signals and used content as proxy for viewer interest, would folks still use ad blockers or accept having ads as part of the viewing experience? Is there a happy medium where users are willing to watch some ads, and advertisers don't track everything but still get some measurement that there shit is being viewed by real people and not bots. IDK. Is there a minutes per hour of ads per content that makes sense for video?
I'm not saying that. I'm just saying it's ironic. I don't understand how folks are reading into this as being a statement of for or against any position. It's just pointing out that there is going to be reckoning for this attack (which a lot of new sources have alluded to from interviews with other officials). So it is ironic that a guy who allegedly sabotaged peace to hang onto power will end up having it be his downfall to lose power. That is ironic. I am not saying it is either good or bad, or justifiable or unjustifiable. Just ironic.
Nothing seems to show the name of an author or editor to confirm that they verified this letter is actually from a Harvard Employee. Let alone what type of employee (Faculty, admin, adjunct, etc) which I think matters when considering an open letter and a person's expertise.
This article ends with self promotion of the website: "Lastly, to students, staff and faculty at Harvard and beyond: I have found the articles and statements published on the WSWS to be unparalleled in their political analysis and clarity. I urge you to consider the WSWS’s socialist perspective of uniting Jewish and Arab workers, and workers everywhere, against the capitalist nation-state system that has ultimately wrought this conflict. The following would be an excellent start"
This should not be upvoted and I question whether this violates the rules of this community and should be removed for:
World News requires posts must "Not [be] United States Internal News" which this clearly is as it's about US University and local politics.
I am not sure this counts as a credible source or falls under what is categorized as propaganda given the stated goals of the site. Not to say it's not invalid for discourse, but not up to the standard of what the world news community is creating. I'd be curious to get the mod's take.
That's ironic since this conflict is tanking him politically for it happening in the first place. But even if your statement is true, that is does not change that is is false to state “the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence."
I think the difference is folks confuse the general public with the general lemmy user. And I can't tell if the fediverse and lemmy are supposed to be attempting to be a front page for general folks or lemmy early adopter folks.
I agree. Too many comments and threads are hijacked or over represented by the pro piracy crowd. I wish more communities would just ban the shit post of "yar, time to sail the high seas" that seem to be the top comment on any media related post.
The Atlantic is a pretty reputable source. And I think there's a difference between subscribing to news for news reporting like the New York Times, The Guardian, etc, vs subscribing to magazine like the Atlantic, New Yorker, or New Republic that will give you more political commentary and analysis. Both have a role to play and both need subscribers. I subscribe to the Atlantic on and off (I've kind of rotated between the atlantic, new republic, and the nation over time). Primary subscriptions for my household are the New York Times and New Yorker. Then I have my annual membership/donations for NPR and PBS. Gotta support the news and good political commentary. It's holiday season soon. Subscriptions make good holiday gifts.
That's because there was a time when everyone had print subscriptions that were healthy, and the internet just gave them extra money for ads. When you start losing subscribers because everyone is looking at your shit online for free, you learn you need to charge for it.
It's the reality of the economics of TV. "TV" is "TV" regardless of whether you get it from streaming or cable. And that means the consumer cost is largely going to be the same. Back when everyone had cable, streaming was probably cheap for 2 reasons:
Subscriber acquisition practices to grow the streaming subscriber base kept cost down even if margins were low.
Streaming was the icing on the cake. So TV companies were happy to make content cheap for streaming when Cable was the main cash cow.
Cable is a pipe to get content from TV and Film companies into the home. Netflix was also a pipe to get content from TV and Film companies into the home. The cost of TV and Film isn't magically cheaper on cable or Netflix. TV and Film companies want to get paid, and that cost gets passed on in the subscription cost. Instead of cable being a one stop shop for bundles and packages of everything, you now have to basically have multiple streaming subs that likely add up to the cost of cable.
I'm not sure how anyone is taking this as a controversial take. Logistically, practically, and the urgent bloodthirst for revenge make this fucking hard to do. But this seems to me to be a pretty even keeled non polarizing take on a complex situation where there is justification for military action against a terrorist group, and that military action must be measured against the safety and needs of a civilian population.