I disagree that they’re embedded in the Israel-Gaza conflict, or that their funding from university partners is at risk by staying silent on that issue, since it is totally unrelated to what they’re writing about - architecture. To me what this looks like, is extremist authors/editors deciding to use their position to inject their personal political views here. Not everything needs to be politicized, and work isn’t the place for personal politics. I get this has been normalized in recent years with many institutions being politicized, but it needs to stop.

> The extra effort of closing a dialog box doesn't seem like too much of a cost for you to bear in exchange for reading their article.

It’s not about the cost of closing the dialog box, but the indication of poor quality and poor staff that this type of mentality indicates. It undermines the credibility of their work on topics like architecture, when they see fit to bring personal politics into this unrelated topic.