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.”
Those violent quakers making trouble again…
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.”
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”
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.
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
pihole -b *.nytimes.com
Done
They already have a subscription fee charge to access their crappy journalism lol.
They already have a subscription fee
FYI for anyone who cares:
Liberal newspaper never disappoint in aiding fascism.
deleted by creator
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.
You sound like the geniuses from a few years ago that said covid was no big deal since it “only” killed 1%.
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.
So you’re saying there have definitely been war crimes and your reaction is essentially “tough shit”?
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%.
You live in an alternate reality. And I wasn’t talking about Hamas. Why are you acting like I am in favor of a terrorist organization?
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
There’s just a minority pushing back openly
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.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!
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.
It’s relative though right?
So is your intelligence but we don’t dismiss it. Maybe we should?
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!
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
It’s not intentionally deceptive, they literally called it that because one of the founders admired the Quakers.
qualities describing Quakers, such as integrity, honesty, and purity, were traits that he wanted customers to associate with the company’s product
I dunno how else to describe that but intentionally deceptive.
I dunno how else to describe that but intentionally deceptive.
Yeah, it IS part of marketing after all.
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.
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.
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 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.
Far right fascist propaganda rag doesn’t want to publish the truth about a genocide it’s covered up and excused?
You can call the NYT a bunch of things but I’d argue its hardly far right fascist propaganda.
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 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?
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
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.
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.
American Friends Service Committee
“The One Where Ross Drops White Phosphorus on Civilians”
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.
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.)
No truth in this paper of lies!
Removed by mod
Oh, piss off. You don’t get to lump all Americans into a single group.
