New York Times rejects Quaker ad for calling Israel’s actions “genocide”
After receiving the text for the ad quoted above, a representative from the advertising team suggested AFSC use the word “war” instead of “genocide” – a word with an entirely different meaning both colloquially and under international law. When AFSC rejected this approach, the New York Times Ad Acceptability Team sent an email that read in part: “Various international bodies, human rights organizations, and governments have differing views on the situation. In line with our commitment to factual accuracy and adherence to legal standards, we must ensure that all advertising content complies with these widely applied definitions.”
https://afsc.org/newsroom/new-york-times-rejects-quaker-ad-calling-israels-actions-genocideOpen linkView original on lemmy.world518
Comments95
My goofy ass thought it meant the oatmeal guys
I don't think there's anything "goofy ass" about that. Quaker Oats Company was explicitly named (and used a logo) to cause people to make that mistake.
Which is especially disheartening because Quakers are some of the most truly liberal and loving Christians you can find. The fact that they're willing to call this a genocide evidence of that, and unsurprising since their interpretation of the bible is 100% strict non-violence to where they can't legally be drafted into the military due to their beliefs. Some of the most truly leftist Christians you'll find.
And Quaker Oats has a bit of a spotty history too... https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/spoonful-sugar-helps-radioactive-oatmeal-go-down-180962424/
As long as you don't remember that Nixon was a Quaker.
There are also multiple branches of Quakerism. I greatly appreciate the person above speaking about it because they truly covered the way the Quaker meetings I was raised in are and the kinds of people I have spent so much of my life around.
However, there are other branches that don’t deserve the same praise. There are evangelical Quakers and while they aren’t as bad as what that word usually implies, they also aren’t exactly deserving of the description above. Nixon was born into one of the evangelical Quaker branches.
Source: grew up Quaker. Literally have a minor degree in Quaker studies, lol. (It’s been a while and I’m not active in any meetings or organizations these days, but I’ll always be grateful for the values it instilled in me and the community I found from it.)
There's a difference between being born into a religion and being a member in good standing.
Nixon cussed and drank and ordered women and children to be murdered en mass.
These are not the ideals of a Quacker.
And funny enough, they're on the boycott list
It's not intentionally deceptive, they literally called it that because one of the founders admired the Quakers.
I mean, they wanted to cash in on the positive reputations Quakers had in business. While not being Quaker. And not implementing any of their business practices AFAIK. Plus their logo is of a traditional Puritan and has nothing to do with Quakers.
I think “deceptive” is a fair word.
I dunno how else to describe that but intentionally deceptive.
Yeah, it IS part of marketing after all.
That guy killed Gene Hackman and then went after Tom Cruise!
And Jigsaw helped him do it!
Wilford Brimley once upvoted a video parody I made involving him and it made me so happy.
That’s high praise, honestly.
Absolutely agreed.
Diabeetus
i knew from the thread title.. doesn't mean i don't like your idea better.
It's the right thing to do.
Lmfao, me too.
It's not far right fascist. It is liberal Zionist. Liberals can and have been genocidal too. Liberal Zionism is incompatible with humanism or universal values.
you two are in agreement on everything except for what constitutes "far right"
personally, i think any public traded or billionaire owned media outlet is intrinsically far right, but i can also understand drawing the distinctions along the lines of how things compare based on their reach. comparing NYT to bellingcat can't be fair because NYT can reach more eyes.
so basically, the distinction between you two is not who's wrong, it's about how you categorize who's wrong
The US definition of liberal doesn't have much to do with actual freedom / liberalism, it's mostly conservatives that want free trade
The values a newspaper represent and in which political direction they lean do not have to be the same just because they're owned by wealthy people or publicly traded.
I also wouldn't classify any big corporation categorically far right just because they are big. Calling something far right/extremist just because you are not a fan of it doesn't change what constitutes reality. This take is completely unhinged. What exactly is intrinsic about the political leaning?
USA Liberal ≡ Far Right Zionist ≡ Fascist
Imagine a carriage return in the middle there
You can call the NYT a bunch of things but I'd argue its hardly far right fascist propaganda.
AFSC is the American Friends Service Committee.
So, a little to unpack here. "Quaker" is the common name for what is more formally known as The Religious Society of Friends. Thus American Friends Service Committee.
Yes, the same Quakers from our history books. Actually to this day genuinely quality people and one of the few Christian groups I tend to have a decent amount of respect for.
I don't know if I got memory holed or what, but I have a distinct memory during the Iraq War of a group of Quakers in kayaks blockading some US warships from leaving port to go to war and that was the pretense that Bush wanted to use to charge these non-violent Quaker anti-war protestors with terrorism charges. It's been a while and I've not been able to dig up a link but I swear it happened, I can find ACLU documents mentioning the Bush admin targeting Quakers, but that's about it. Interestingly enough, it included surveillance of this exact organization.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-report-shows-widespread-pentagon-surveillance-peace-activists (January 2007)
It’s making me really happy seeing how many people in the comments here have nice things to say about Quakers!
I don’t remember the incident you’re recalling. Sounds like something my people would do though, lol. What I do think of in terms of Quaker activity at the time is a lot of protests and also Tom Fox, a Quaker taken hostage and killed in Iraq. He was there representing the org Christian Peacemaker Team, which goes to places plagued with violence to do service and good. Unlike missionaries and despite their name, they do not try to convert anyone.
I did not know Tom, but I know many people who did. And despite the very personal loss, the response was doubling down on the efforts to bring peace and stop the war. I think it was a pretty widespread assumption that most Friends organizations were on watch lists.
Leftist Quakers are pretty radical, and pretty awesome.
"The One Where Ross Drops White Phosphorus on Civilians"
Genocide is just too strong of a word. They are just disagreeing by murdering all their population. You see, it is just a disagreement.
Genocide is only genocide if it comes from the genocide region of france. Otherwise it’s just a sparkling massacre.
Wow, that was a good one!
1% of Gaza is dead.
"Murdering all their population."
Grow up.
The definition of genocide explicitly does not require a given percentage of a population.
In whole OR IN PART.
That already exceeds the Bosnian genocide by more than 10,000 people.
Yes and in the Bosnian genocide there were not credible claims that the deceased were incidental casualties, which are permissive and expected in war. There were soldiers going door to door murdering families, lining them up and shooting them, sometimes hundreds at a time. You know, actual genocide.
Nothing like that has happened in Gaza, not even allegedly. There's been some mistakes and some definite war crimes. That's all war, though.
If you are going to make a statement counter to the UN, Amnesty International, and the governments of Ireland and South Africa (among other institutions that I'm too lazy to link below) you're going to need more of a citation than "trust me bro."
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/11/un-special-committee-finds-israels-warfare-methods-gaza-consistent-genocide
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/07/world/europe/ireland-icj-israel-genocide.html
Just look at all the leaders and western institutions that say otherwise. Probably your own country's intelligence and diplomatic heads, probably your chief executive. The list of institutions that agree with me is much longer than your list of loudmouths. The question you should ask is when did South Africa and Ireland start working for Iran?
Ah, so trust me bro. Good day!
Hmm, but if they are larger in number, it doesn't necessarily mean they are right. Right? 🤔 Or am I misunderstanding your point?
Of course number doesn't make something right or wrong.
I also find persuasive the list of The country's in support of South Africa's complaint to the ICC; a bunch of religious dictatorships and monarchies with their own abysmal human rights records, compared to those who supported Israel, which includes like France, Australia, Japan, and even Canada. Canada is widely known for its cool head in international affairs and it's consistent stance where human rights are concerned, which might not be as aggressive as some wish, but they manage to maintain relations and push their agenda, which is usually shared by the western world, forward.
Nothing like that has happened, except for all the times IDF soldiers have admitted to doing it, and all the times the leadership had admitted to allowing or encouraging it
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-12-23/ty-article-opinion/.premium/when-you-enter-gaza-you-are-god-inside-the-minds-of-idf-soldiers-who-commit-war-crimes/00000193-f2a4-dc18-a3db-fee62b540000
There's just a minority pushing back openly
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yx56ep165o.amp
No not at all. Israel actually prosecutes war criminals and will continue to do so. That's unlike Gaza, where war crimes are rewarded with cash prizes, paid in Iranian Dinar.
That's the leadership the world expects from Hamas; let everyone starve so they can build out tunnels and buy rocket launchers, get 50,000 people killed as voluntary and involuntary human shields, and then sit back and let Qatari and other anti-western media brainwash well-meaning folks such as you into thinking everyone in Gaza is getting killed, when it's really just a very small amount of people who just can't manage to stay away from Hamas like the other 99%.
The IDF commit war crimes daily. You are completely delusional to blame the people being bombed and starved instead of the ones doing the bombing and starvation.
::: spoiler De-development via the Gaza Occupation
Page 402
The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-Development - Third Edition by Sara M. Roy
:::
::: spoiler Blockade, including Aid
Hamas began twenty years into the occupation during the first Intifada, with the goal of ending the occupation. Collective punishment has been a deliberate Israeli tactic for decades with the Dahiya doctrine. Violence such as suicide bombings and rockets escalated in response to Israeli enforcement of the occupation and apartheid.
After the 'disengagement' in 2007, this turned into a full blockade; where Israel has had control over the airspace, borders, and sea. Under the guise of 'dual-use' Israel has restricted food, allocating a minimum supply leading to over half of Gaza being food insecure; construction materials, medical supplies, and other basic necessities have also been restricted.
:::
::: spoiler Peace Process and Solution
Hamas proposed a full prisoner swap as early as Oct 8th, and agreed to the US proposed UN Permanent Ceasefire Resolution. Additionally, Hamas has already agreed to no longer govern the Gaza Strip, as long as Palestinians receive liberation and a unified government can take place.
Both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades. Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
One State Solution, Foreign Affairs
:::
::: spoiler Human Shields
Hamas:
HRW on Laws-of-War Violations 2009
Agency Demands Full Respect for the Sanctity of Its Premises in Gaza - July 2014
HRW - Palestinian Armed Groups’ October 7 Assault on Israel
Israel:
Israel/OPT: Israeli attacks targeting Hamas and other armed group fighters that killed scores of displaced civilians in Rafah should be investigated as war crimes
HRW - Gaza: Unlawful Israeli Hospital Strikes Worsen Health Crisis
Additionally, there is extensive independent verification of Israel using Palestinians as Human Shields:
IDF uses Human Shields,
Including Children (2013 Report)
Palestinian children face unrelenting genocide, displacement, and systematic abuse throughout 2024
Israel “Systematically” Uses Gaza Children as Human Shields, Rights Group Finds 2024
Breaking The Silence - Testimonies from IDF Veterans
:::
::: spoiler Deliberate Attacks on Civilians
Israel deliberately targets civilian areas. From in general with the Dahiya Doctrine to multiple systems deployed in Gaza to do so:
The Dahiya Doctrine & Israel’s Use of Disproportionate Force
‘A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza
Lavender
Where's Daddy
Israel also targets Israeli Soldiers and Civilians to prevent them being leveraged as hostages, known as the Hannibal Directive. Which was also used on Oct 7th.
:::
Look I know this stuff is very hard and emotional. Not everything is a war crime. Using AI to track enemy combatants is not a war crime.
An airstrike that intentionally kills civilians, incidental to a legit military target, maybe very sad, but it is not a war crime. The assessment of strategic value is weighed against the overall conflict, not the specific attack, It's weighed against the decades of rocket attacks and suicide bombings by people hiding underground in population centers with impunity.
Yes, there's about 10 or 20 documented cases of Israeli soldiers using human Shields in horrific ways. Strapping them to the front of their car, literally holding them between them and gunfire. That's a war crime. It's also a crime under Israeli law. People get arrested for it and go to jail for it. It does not happen daily. In Gaza, being a human shield is a way of life. It is always a war crime to, whilst claiming the protections of international law, to willfully violate international law by failing to distinguish troops from civilians, by hiding amongst them and not wearing uniforms. That is the way of life in Gaza, points of pride even, legacy. That's infinitely more of a crime against humanity in the most literal terms.
1% of gaza dead.
That’s 46000 people, half of which are women and children according to AP.
Another 100,000 injured, not counted in your 1%.
I hope this is just really bad satire and not your actual beliefs.
Hasbara troll for sure. Only makes stupid ass comments like that.
Except for all my other comments.
There's another!
It's a genocide.
::: spoiler Israel's Genocide on Occupied Palestine
Others: AP News, Time, Reuters, Vox, CBC
:::
What are you talking about? that’s a lot of people.
It's relative though right?
You sound like the geniuses from a few years ago that said covid was no big deal since it “only” killed 1%.
They're god-damn right. "War" is not an appropriate word for this. The consensus amongst international human rights orgs is that its a "genocide".
At first I thought this was a quote from the Quakers as to why they wouldn't run the ad with the word "war"
Ha. I would not have seen the add or messaging from the AFSC.
By rejecting it NYT Streisanded the message they sought to silence.
Well played, Quakers.
Liberal newspaper never disappoint in aiding fascism.
I worked along side some rad Christians in Palestine (doing human rights work, documenting Israeli war crimes, etc).
Please donate to Christian Peacemaking Team. They're awesome.
https://cpt.org/
They're founded by Quakers and other nonviolent Christian sects. I also learned that their members pay less taxes because they legally dont have to pay taxes that go to the US military. So if you pay taxes in the US and dont want to support genocide, consider changing to one of those religions.
You and I may know some of the same people! Does the name Max Carter mean anything to you?
Small correction though: the taxes thing isn’t actually true… there were (probably still are, but I’ve not been actively involved in enough years to feel justified making the claim) Quakers who chose to hold a percent of their income tax in escrow rather than give it to the government under the argument that their conscientious objector status should keep their money from going to the military.
It is not a legally recognized stance, and these people risk fees, interest, and legal action for their withholdings. And yet they choose to risk that as a form of peaceful protest.
Your comment dredged up all the memories of a workshop/talk I attended by one of these folks when I was in probably high school? It was not something done lightly or without effort.
One of the volunteers that I met said they have a dedicated day at the church to help church members file their taxes correctly (she was the one that organized it and helped other church members do it correctly). She said it was recognized, but only a very few sects qualified.
She didn't mention anything about consequences.
I’m wondering if that may be the Mennonites? Like the Amish, they don’t have social security numbers so the tax code is definitely different for them. I can say with confidence that Quakers don’t have that exclusion.
Yes, the Mennonites were one of the founders of CPT
Those violent quakers making trouble again...
Done
They already have a subscription fee charge to access their crappy journalism lol.
FYI for anyone who cares:
This is a new kind of war. This is an eradication.
e: It's from a Lamb of God song about Bush, seemed apropos. Get salty about it.
The only things new about this war are the weapons being used to fight it. Humans have been wiping each other out since we've been around.
1% per year?
"An eradication."
Grow up.
Doesn't this make then legally liable for content in their ads?
It's an editorial decision like any other, it's nothing new in legal terms
So section 230 doesn't apply then.
https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/
Oh. Sorry.
It never did. The NY Times is a newspaper, not a social media network.
The comments section though
Okay, yes, Section 230 would apply to the comments section and only the comments section.
(Is that weirdly inconsistent, since exerting editorial control to reject ads isn't that different from moderators removing objectionable comments? Yes, yes it is. But that's just because the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is a fucked-up law that shouldn't exist in the form it does.)
No truth in this paper of lies!
Oh, piss off. You don't get to lump all Americans into a single group.