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.”
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.
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.
pihole -b *.nytimes.com
Done
They already have a subscription fee charge to access their crappy journalism lol.
Liberal newspaper never disappoint in aiding fascism.
Genocide is just too strong of a word. They are just disagreeing by murdering all their population. You see, it is just a disagreement.
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.
It’s a genocide.
Israel's Genocide on Occupied Palestine
- De-Gaza: A Year of Israel’s Genocide and the Collapse of World Order - Euro-Med Monitor Report see Chapter 2 and 3
Our first-hand observations of the medical and humanitarian catastrophe inflicted on Gaza are consistent with the descriptions provided by an increasing number of legal experts and organizations concluding that genocide is taking place in Gaza.
- Doctors Without Borders: Life in the death trap that is Gaza
It examines the killing of civilians, damage to and destruction of civilian infrastructure, forcible displacement, the obstruction or denial of life-saving goods and humanitarian aid, and the restriction of power supplies. It analyses Israel’s intent through this pattern of conduct and statements by Israeli decision-makers. It concludes that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
- Amnesty: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza Revealed Through Evidence and Analysis Video and Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territory: ‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza Report
On 26 January 2024, the ICJ said that it was plausible that Israel had breached the Genocide Convention. As an emergency measure, it ordered Israel ensure that its army refrained from genocidal acts against Palestinians.
The ICJ reported, as part of its decisions in March and May, that the situation in Gaza had deteriorated and that Israel had failed to abide by its order in January.
So, when we look at the actions taken, the dropping of thousands and thousands of bombs in a couple of days, including phosphorus bombs, as we heard, on one of the most densely populated areas around the world, together with these proclamations of intent, this indeed constitutes genocidal killing, which is the first act, according to the convention, of genocide. And Israel, I must say, is also perpetrating act number two and three — that is, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and creating condition designed to bring about the destruction of the group by cutting off water, food, supply of energy, bombing hospitals, ordering the fast evictions of hospitals, which the World Health Organization has declared to be, quote, “a death sentence.” So, we’re seeing the combination of genocidal acts with special intent. This is indeed a textbook case of genocide.
More than 800 scholars of international law and genocide have signed a public statement arguing that the Israeli military may be committing genocidal acts against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as the total siege and relentless airstrikes continue to inflict devastation on the occupied territory.
An independent United Nations expert warned Monday that “Israel’s genocidal violence risks leaking out of Gaza and into the occupied Palestinian territory as a whole” as Western governments, corporations, and other institutions keep up their support for the Israeli military, which stands accused of grave war crimes in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Our documentation encompasses over 500 incitements of violence and genocidal incitement, appearing in the forms of social media posts, television interviews, and official statements from Israeli politicians, army personnel, journalists, and other influential personalities.
I, Lee Mordechai, a historian by profession and an Israeli citizen, bear witness in this document to the situation in Gaza as events are unfolding. The enormous amount of evidence I have seen, much of it referenced later in this document, has been enough for me to believe that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza. I explain why I chose to use the term below. Israel’s campaign is ostensibly its reaction to the Hamas massacre of Oct. 7, 2023, in which war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed within the context of the longstanding conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that can be dated back to 1917 or 1948 (or other dates). In all cases, historical grievances and atrocities do not justify additional atrocities in the present. Therefore, I consider Israel’s response to Hamas’ actions on Oct. 7 utterly disproportionate and criminal.
What are you talking about? that’s a lot of people.
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.
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.
And funny enough, they’re on the boycott list
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.
Some of the most truly leftist Christians you’ll find.
As long as you don’t remember that Nixon was a Quaker.
And Quaker Oats has a bit of a spotty history too… https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/spoonful-sugar-helps-radioactive-oatmeal-go-down-180962424/
Diabeetus
That guy killed Gene Hackman and then went after Tom Cruise!
And Jigsaw helped him do it!
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.
Ha. I would not have seen the add or messaging from the AFSC.
By rejecting it NYT Streisanded the message they sought to silence.
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)
In response to the ACLU’s FOIA requests filed on February 1, 2006, the Defense Department has released dozens of TALON reports that were compiled on Americans. Many of the reports focus on anti-military recruitment events and protests, including activities organized by the Quaker organization American Friends Service Committee, United for Peace and Justice, Veterans for Peace, and Catholic Worker.
American Friends Service Committee
“The One Where Ross Drops White Phosphorus on Civilians”
Far right fascist propaganda rag doesn’t want to publish the truth about a genocide it’s covered up and excused?
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
USA Liberal ≡ Far Right Zionist ≡ Fascist
Imagine a carriage return in the middle there
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.
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.)
Removed by mod
Oh, piss off. You don’t get to lump all Americans into a single group.
No truth in this paper of lies!
