Andy @ andrewrgross @slrpnk.net

Posts

41

Comments

1,072

Joined

2 yr. ago

Obviously not. But that's true to some degree for all news sources. I don't blindly trust any newspaper. I read Times of Israel through a lens of context, just like I do for the NY Times, The Guardian, The Intercept, etc.

I think it's incredibly useful to see what a country reads about itself. Not only is that true even for countries engaged atrocities: it's especially true for countries engaged in atrocities.

I find the Times of Israel to be a decent source. They're obviously biased in favor of Israel, but it's not behind a paywall and they're far more informative than The NY Post, for instance. I think they seem less biased then the WSJ, frankly.

Overall, a useful insight into mainstream discourse in Israel with fairly accurate reporting.

I don't think they mean that tiktok is being banned over this app specifically: I just interpreted their comment to mean that tiktok has been an ongoing nuisance to the American mainstream political establishment.

That's cool. Do you have any details?

Don't forget finance minister Bezalel Smotich. He gets less attention than Ben-Gvir, but he is arguably to Ben-Gvir's right, as insane as that concept sounds.

Smotich has even acknowledged (in a joking manner) that he's a fascist.

I think you misread my comment. I said that Howidy seems to falsely believe that one can only oppose one side in a war.

To repeat this point: We all can -- and should! -- condemn violence against civilians, sexual assault of captives, and the killing and torture of dissidents by ALL PARTIES. That includes the ruling parties of both Israel and Gaza at the moment.

I DO agree that there is more than one way to oppose a war. I'm not disputing that. But you seem to be having a different conversation than the one I was having. That wasn't something I mentioned.

Ironically? The byline says that he's an accountant.

I'm not sure if you're trolling me, but I don't know what part of what I said led you to any of that.

What part of my comment is about there being more than one way to protest?

For what it's worth, I don't endorse the use of violence in any context other than defense. That said, I think it's largely pointless to debate what kind of protest is "OK". It's usually not a practical approach to fixing a problem, and is usually just employed to debate who deserves blame for something rather than examining how to fix something.

Reading that line, I chuckled. That has to be satire.

This article makes no sense. The protests have been explicit in their demands for their schools to disclose investments in Israeli war and divest. Whenever someone says, 'Why don't the protesters protest against Putin/Hamas/China/etc.??' they're clearly just saying, 'Stop making demands of people you have leverage over! I demand symbolic, ignorable activism only!'

This article is... Bizarre.

Edit: I went looking for some context to try to understand who this guy is. Apparently Hamza Howidy left Gaza after he protested against Hamas and was beaten and tortured, and it seems that a lot of his online engagement is now directed solely at the need to remove Hamas from power. I must say that I feel sympathetic. That must be an awful position to be in. I think it's sad that he seems to be suffering from the common misconception that one can only pick one side to oppose in a war. I wish him healing, and hope his family back in Gaza survives this war.

Wow, for some reason, the bot really struggled to summarize this article. That reads like nonsense.

To give some personal context, Summer Lee represents Pittsburgh, where I grew up. I was watching this race somewhat closely, and was in town visiting family last week. I saw a lot of yard signs for Lee's opponent, and many signs for Lee as well, though not as many as her rival's in my parents' heavily Jewish, upper middle class neighborhood.

As Ryan Grim writes, this is a big victory not just because Summer belongs in congress: her victory is a sign that the current approach to removing progressive critics of the war in Gaza from congress was dealt a serious blow in this race. Attempts to present her as out of touch or radical failed terribly. We should expect even more vicious attacks on representatives like Cori Bush, but it's becoming increasingly clear that a major shift in power has begun. Strategies for silencing critics of the Israeli system of apartheid that were incredibly potent just two years ago are already looking far less effective when countered by organized progressive candidates.

Well the Confederate states didn't want to end slavery, and South Africa's ruling elites didn't want to get rid of apartheid.

This is what I want, and I'm going to keep saying that the world should compel them to accept it.

It's sad, but I realized a few weeks ago that if you map out the direction of Israel, the hard right vision is essentially Iran.

Setting aside the treatment of the Palestinians, Israel was once known for its cosmopolitan night life and high quality universities. Now, its seen a takeover by the militant, backwards, misogynistic theocrats. And as more and more people get angry about losing their rights, the theocrats get more and more heavy-handed in militarizing their society, both inwardly and outwardly. And as the rest of the world becomes more and more disgusted, the country is becoming more and more isolated.

I still believe in a better way: I want to see a one state solution.

People don't say this often but I actually appreciate what there is to like about Israel. There's a lot of cool people and great culture and natural splendor. Same for Palestine too. If we can just apply enough pressure and stop saying "tWo sTaTE soLuTiON! tWO sTAte SoLUtION!!" and just say "Enough. It's time you recognized that it's been one country oppressing half its population this whole time, so stop oppressing people and give everyone the same rights."

I say this because the status quo is already over. I think that it can either become modern South Africa, or Iran. Those are the two most likely paths, and I really want the first one.

Okay, but how does that definition not precisely describe a tool?

It sounds like it very much is a tool.

I don't think anyone in this thread has "cheered for Islamic terrorist groups".

The factual statements people have made are true: Iran has been the more restrained actor. Israel's aggression has been alarming. The US govt's position has prioritized an alliance far past our national interests. It's any of this incorrect?

I don't like the Iranian govt. I don't like the current Israeli gov't. I'm not thrilled with America's gov't. I love my country (the US), and I like most Israelis, Palestinians, and Iranians. Is that really hard to reconcile? It seems like the majority opinion.

Every time I see an article on this prick I think, "Well this fucking sucks."

Anyway, this fucking sucks.

That's not conspiratorial thinking at all, that's just geopolitical literacy. Your assessment is correct: Iran planned this carefully to avoid causing any major damage. This was pro wrestling.

Which honestly makes it sad to consider that Iran has become the more restrained, rational actor here. The US needs to put Netanyahu on a short leash. He is not worth this.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but this comment reads like you didn't read the article and have no idea what it's about.

The guy accused of rape sued a news channel for reporting that a woman claimed she was raped without specifically naming him because it was easy to infer he was the guy who did it. And then a judge ruled that it wasn't defamation because he clearly raped her.

I'm pretty critical of the media, but in this particular case, they didn't do anything to this guy, this was all on him.

It's either because of DEI or work from home. It's not clear how, but it's got to be one of those.

Do you think the Atlantic is a lefty mag?

I think you're confusing it with some other magazine. The Atlantic is for neoliberal centrists. It's modestly liberal in the way The New Yorker is, but it's for old, wealthy New England investors.