pageok
pageok
pageok
The Ad Ms. Magazine Refused To Run:


The message, I take it, is pretty clear — "Feminists should like the way women are treated in Israeli life," coupled with the pretty strong implication of "... and look how favorably it compares on this score to Israel's enemies." Yet this is what the American Jewish Congress reports happened when the ad was submitted to Ms. magazine:

When Director of AJCongress' Commission for Women's Empowerment Harriet Kurlander tried to place the ad, she was told that publishing the ad "will set off a firestorm" and that "there are very strong opinions" on the subject -− the subject presumably being whether or not one can say anything positive about Israel. Ms. Magazine publisher Eleanor Smeal failed to respond to a signed-for certified letter with a copy of the ad as well as numerous calls by Mr. Gordon over a period of weeks.

A Ms. Magazine representative, Susie Gilligan, whom the Ms. Magazine masthead lists under the publisher's office, told Ms. Kurlander that the magazine "would love to have an ad from you on women's empowerment, or reproductive freedom, but not on this." Ms. Gilligan failed to elaborate what "this" is....

Ms. Magazine has a long record of publishing advertisements rallying readers to support reproductive choice; opposing the Religious Right; highlighting the fragility of the pro-Roe v. Wade majority on the Supreme Court; charging that "Pat Robertson and his Religious Right cohorts don't like individual freedom;" announcing support for the "struggle for freedom and human rights;" opposing the Bush administration's campaign to fill federal courts with judges who "will reverse decades of progress on reproductive rights and privacy, civil rights, religious liberty, environmental protection and so much more;" as well as accusing the Bush administration of being "bent on rewarding big corporations and the rich, turning back the clock on women's rights and civil rights, and promoting a U.S. empire abroad."

"This flagship publication of the American women's empowerment movement publishes ads that are controversial in the general culture but not so among its readership," Ms. Kurlander said. "Obviously, Ms. believes our ad would enflame a significant portion of their readers."

Mr. Gordon added, "What really amazes me is that just recently, in their Winter 2007 issue, Ms. ran a cover story with a picture of Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi with the heading in big letters: "This is What a Speaker Looks Like." While Ms. has every reason to be proud of Speaker Pelosi and her accomplishments, as are we, the only discernable difference between Speaker Pelosi and Speaker Itzik apparently is that Speaker Pelosi is not Israeli."

Mr. Gordon noted that while Israel was apparently too hot to handle, Ms. Magazine did not extend that taboo to Arab and Moslem women. "What is even more amazing is that, while refusing to publish a simple ad praising three very notable women, women who embody the ideal that Ms. Magazine seemingly espouses, Ms. has run a cover article in the Fall 2003 issue on Queen Noor of Jordan, has featured a number of articles on Muslim women, and even ran an article in the Winter 2004 issue entitled, 'Images of Palestine,' which discussed the Ramallah Film Festival and gave sympathetic reviews to films concerning 'the liberation of South Lebanon' from Israel as well as numerous films which portrayed terrorism as legitimate 'revolutionary' activity against Israel and miscast Israel's activities to counter terrorism as 'oppressive.'" ...

The AJC item closes with this: "Ms. has the right to turn down our ad. But in exercising that right, it has spoken loudly about itself and its readership, and their lingering hostility to Israel." If the account in the AJC report is correct — and I have no reason to doubt it, though if you know of contrary facts, please let me know — then the AJC's evaluation seems quite right, too: Ms. is entitled to make its editorial judgment, but it's an editorial judgment that we ought to condemn.

UPDATE: Here's the magazine's response.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Ms. Response:
  2. The Ad Ms. Magazine Refused To Run:
AntonK (mail):
That the Left in this country despises Israel is hardly news, they just aren't usually this obvious about it.
1.11.2008 12:24pm
WHOI Jacket:
But, I thought if mothers/women were in charge, all wars would cease?
1.11.2008 12:26pm
Anderson (mail):
It would be nice if Ms. set out to reform &enlighten its remaining 27 readers, but it's understandable they prefer not to.
1.11.2008 12:31pm
A.C.:
Yet another reason for having to go around saying "I'm not a feminist, but..."

People who have sympathy for the oppressed mean well, but sometimes they miss the mark as to where the oppression is coming from.
1.11.2008 12:39pm
Adam J:
I dunno, but it seems a little strange to me to see an advertisement for a foreign nation in a U.S. magazine. Not to say that the message is nice, that Israel has women leaders I think is a great thing... but I don't see what's wrong with a magazine being keen on the idea that they should have advertisements that promote donations to foreign nations- it might be a little backwards and nationalistic, but I think its a reach to assume antisemitism.
1.11.2008 12:40pm
Adam J:
oops, I meant NOT being keen on the idea
1.11.2008 12:41pm
Adam J:
of course, if Ms. has allowed similar ads by other countries, then I think AJC is right on the money
1.11.2008 12:43pm
PatHMV (mail) (www):
That happens all the time, Adam J. I don't know about Ms., but financial and science magazines very often have special advertising sections devoted to the financial or scientific wonders happening in the foreign country purchasing the ad.

Also, while the American Jewish Congress may promote foreign aid to Israel generally, I see nothing in the ad itself which could be construed as "promoting donations to foreign nations."
1.11.2008 12:49pm
Virginian:

That the Left in this country despises Israel is hardly news, they just aren't usually this obvious about it.


Which is why I cannot understand why most Jews are Democrats.
1.11.2008 12:55pm
Temp Guest (mail):
I'm a feminist and some of my best friends are Jews Zionists.
1.11.2008 12:56pm
liberty (mail) (www):
Adam J: PatHMV is right. There are often ads for small countries or countries trying to promote tourism or trying to promote their tech sector companies or workers or some other sector (think "Buy American Steel" except its "Ukrainian Wheat" or whatever).

There may be others more political in nature, I can't recall. Certainly there are ads on tv and on billboards about supporting political causes in other countries- not sure if they are all put out by American groups or not.

But it seems natural to me-- Israelis looking for support. Moral, financial, etc. And to promote a good image for tourism. It seems in line with all the other ads.
1.11.2008 1:21pm
Mr. Liberal:
I support Israel.

But, I do not think that Ms. magazine's editorial decision should be condemned.

Basically, they know that this ad will cause a lot of controversy, because the message behind the ad is, as you suggest, a comparison between Israel and its neighbors.

And maybe, just maybe, they didn't want the Palestinian/Isreali conflict to be the main point made in this particular issue.

Their main issue happens to be the rights of women, not discussions of the Palestinian/Isreali conflict. It seems reasonable for them to want to focus their magazine on a particular issue and not have other issues thrust upon their readers.

With respect to the Queen Noor Jordan, she is not deeply associated with the Isreali/Palestinian conflict. Coverage of her may not distract from the message that Ms. magazine wants to emphasize in a particular issue in the same way that this ad would.

Now, perhaps in other issues Ms. magazine has had issues that have features views on Isreali relations with others. That does not mean that we should expect them to allow others to hijack their magazine with this particular topic for all other issues. Just because Ms. covered the conflict in one particular issue doesn't mean that this particular ad "fits" in other issues.

If we are going to condemn Ms. magazine, it should be for

sympathetic reviews to films concerning ‘the liberation of South Lebanon’ from Israel as well as numerous films which portrayed terrorism as legitimate ‘revolutionary’ activity against Israel and miscast Israel’s activities to counter terrorism as ‘oppressive.’


I really didn't know that Ms. magazine supported terrorism. But, if it does, it should be condemned. Part of me suspects we are not being told the whole story Mr. Gordon. I doubt that Ms. magazine is in fact a supporter of terrorism. But if it is, then of course it should be condemned.

But, not printing these ads is a very reasonable decision by a magazine that understandably wants to maintain editorial autonomy concerning the themes of any particular issue.
1.11.2008 1:21pm
Mr. Liberal:

That the Left in this country despises Israel is hardly news, they just aren't usually this obvious about it.


But those right-wing militias, they just love Israel, and Jews too.

Give me a break. There are some people who despise Israel on the left. But there are also some people who despise it on the right.
1.11.2008 1:24pm
John M. Perkins (mail):
The message, I take it, is pretty clear — "Feminists should like the way women are treated in Israeli life," coupled with the pretty strong implication of "... and look how favorably it compares on this score to Israel's enemies."


I don't see how you got the leap to "... coupled with the pretty strong implication of "... and look how favorably it compares on this score to Israel's enemies." " It's not in the ad I saw. Had it been, then the MS. rejection would have been more reasonable. The ad I saw seemed to be only "Feminists should like the way women are treated in Israeli life, ..." That ad MS. should be condemned for rejecting.
1.11.2008 1:24pm
randal (mail):
The Left doesn't despise Israel. We're just pissed at them.

Not wanting to run a pro-Israel ad isn't as bad as the whole Freedom Fries debacle, when the Right was similarly pissed at France. At least Ms. isn't being antagonistic.
1.11.2008 1:24pm
dearieme:
Surely "the American women’s empowerment movement" lost all credibility when it decided that rape, sexual molestation and abuse of an employer's powers were OK as long as they were perpetrated by Slick Willy?
1.11.2008 1:30pm
Mike Keenan:
It is a very dull ad -- and I have no idea what it is supposed to be advertising -- but that shouldn't prevent its publication.

If this were an ad for, say Belgium, and showed three prominent woman from Belgium, would they have hesitated to publish that?
1.11.2008 1:32pm
psychdoc (mail):
But those right-wing militias, they just love Israel, and Jews too.

Give me a break. There are some people who despise Israel on the left. But there are also some people who despise it on the right.


The difference is that right-wing militias are fringe movements, while anti-Israeli and anti-semitic views are openly espoused by relatively main-stream elements of the left.
1.11.2008 1:33pm
On The Way...:
The ad wasn't composed very well. Admittedly, I looked at the ad after reading EV's post and that affected my reading of the ad, but without that influence I wouldn't know what message I am supposed to take away from the ad.

Is it truly a celebration of women in power?

The three photos chosen have an uncanny parallel with the photos used on those flyers seen at the entrances of Wal-Mart and the supermarket. Although there is only so much that can be done with a portrait, these are not good examples of the kind that should be used to celebrate an individual's achievements. In all three of them, the women look unhappy.

Is this ad an attempt to create a shift in the image of Israel in the US (among a certain segment of the population)?

Possibly, but the poor choice of the photos used may actually reinforce the negative connotations held by people who are actively hostile towards Israel and the ad would fail to reach the "persuadable" who have not taken a firm stance in favor for either side of the debate.

Are there other considerations to take into account when reading the ad?

I don't know the actual demographics of the magazine's target audience, but there may be extra considerations regarding the glamour, or lack thereof, in the ad as well as the education level of the readers. If the magazine is targeted towards people, or even specifically women, with a high school education and maybe some college, would it really make sense to place an *unattractive* ad celebrating powerful, highly educated women in that publication? I don't think it would for a variety of reasons.

However, if the ad was rejected merely for the reason of having the word "Israel" in it, featuring powerful Israelis, or being a plug for the American Jewish Congress then I firmly agree that the editorial decision to exclude the ad was in poor taste and should be condemned.
1.11.2008 1:42pm
Oren:
Surely "the American women’s empowerment movement" lost all credibility when it decided that rape, sexual molestation and abuse of an employer's powers were OK as long as they were perpetrated by Slick Willy?
I don't recall anybody saying the Slick Willy's indiscretions were 'OK' but to call it a rape strains credulity.
1.11.2008 1:44pm
rarango (mail):
What Anderson said. Ms continues its long slide into irrelevance. And given the ad I looked at, you have to do a whole lot of reading into reach the conclusions that some posters have. But thats just me I supppose.
1.11.2008 1:48pm
Ralph Phelan (mail):
Give me a break. There are some people who despise Israel on the left. But there are also some people who despise it on the right.


Which brings up the question:
Who's more influential, Ms. Magazine or the Ron Paul Report?
That's a tough one, it's often hard to accurately measure small quantities.
1.11.2008 1:53pm
Jason F:
While Ms. has every reason to be proud of Speaker Pelosi and her accomplishments, as are we, the only discernable difference between Speaker Pelosi and Speaker Itzik apparently is that Speaker Pelosi is not Israeli.


Another difference -- or perhaps another aspect of the same difference -- is that Speaker Pelosi is an American and Ms. Magazine is an American magazine. It makes sense to me that they would be more apt to spotlight the successes of U.S. women than women of other countries.

That said, I do agree with Prof. Volokh's bottom line -- Ms. has every right to make editorial decisions regarding from whom it will accept ads, but this is a decision with which I disagree.
1.11.2008 1:54pm
Temp Guest (mail):

I don't recall anybody saying the Slick Willy's indiscretions were 'OK' but to call it a rape strains credulity.


Juanita Broderick? Mrs. Willy?
1.11.2008 1:57pm
Ms. Magazine's Masthead:
For those who want to voice their opinions to the magazine's editors:
http://www.msmagazine.com/contact.asp
1.11.2008 1:59pm
Ralph Phelan (mail):
"But, I do not think that Ms. magazine's editorial decision should be condemned.

Basically, they know that this ad will cause a lot of controversy"

That an "image" ad this innocuous would cause controversy says something about their readership. What's controversial about it - that it mentions Israel without condemning it? That it tries to do for Israel the kind of thing other countries do all the time, so accepting it would mean implicitly holding Israel to the same standards other countries are held to?

It appears that Ms. believes their readership considers Israel's mere existence "controversial."
1.11.2008 1:59pm
AntonK (mail):

And maybe, just maybe, they didn't want the Palestinian/Isreali conflict to be the main point made in this particular issue.
Or maybe, just maybe, they didn't want a suicide bomber detonating herself in their office complex
1.11.2008 2:03pm
Kazinski:
Oren,
I don't recall anybody saying the Slick Willy's indiscretions were 'OK' but to call it a rape strains credulity.

Juanita Broderick says she was raped by Bill Clinton when he was the AG of Arkansas. It was a pretty credible allegation, though it was never investigated because it was well past the statute of limitations. Obviously making a charge like that years later makes it pretty hard for Clinton to defend himself, so it is unfair in that regard, but it is understandable that a woman might feel intimidated accusing a powerful state official in a state like Arkansas.
1.11.2008 2:05pm
whit:
"Surely "the American women’s empowerment movement" lost all credibility when it decided that rape, sexual molestation and abuse of an employer's powers were OK as long as they were perpetrated by Slick Willy?"

or the duke corollary which is that

1) the woman must be telling the truth because she is a person of color, single mother, oppressed class hero-victim
2) the duke 'boys' must be lying, vicious, evil privileged patriarchal white rapists
3) oh wait. she made it up? well, SOMETHING happened, and she's still a victim.
1.11.2008 2:13pm
Yankev (mail):

And maybe, just maybe, they didn't want the Palestinian/Isreali conflict to be the main point made in this particular issue.

Hard to swallow that if you've read the more detailed report at yourish.com, that Ms. has published

one about Israeli mothers marching for peace, international legal discrimination of women, . . . a female Israeli conscientious objector, and a ton of stories on Iraq"

as well as a strongly anti-Israel piece during the height of the suicide bombings in 2001, glossing over the bombings and attacking Israel's response.
1.11.2008 2:14pm
whit:
"But, I thought if mothers/women were in charge, all wars would cease?"

and when a woman turns out to be a conservative/hawkish type, she is not "authentically woman" in the same way clarence thomas or sowell are not "authentically black".

iirc, one feminist referred to margaret thatcher as clearly "without uterus" (iow, not a REAL woman), since no woman could possibly be conservative and be an authentic woman
1.11.2008 2:14pm
rarango (mail):
It looks like Ms Magazine and some of the old line feminists have done what it took us guys several million years to do: Create a matriarchy based on age, time in the movement, and most importantly money/social class. Say--does anyone know when the next meeting of the Patriarchy is?
1.11.2008 2:18pm
whit:
"Say--does anyone know when the next meeting of the Patriarchy is?"

punctuality, and the concept of "time" are clearly white heterosexist patriarchal phallological fascist corporatist concepts so...


6 pm
1.11.2008 2:25pm
Mike& (mail):
"Ms. has the right to turn down our ad. But in exercising that right, it has spoken loudly about itself and its readership, and their lingering hostility to Israel."

It seems the pro-Israel bias of some has caused them to let this statement pass by without critical analysis.

The "their" is an obvious non-sequitor. Ms. may indeed support Israel. But the job of Ms. editors is to sell magazines and not turn off subscribers.

Also, the anti-Israel readership may likely be very small. But it's a loud and emotional group. Let's say that it's only 1% of readers.

What magazine do you folks know that wouldn't feel a hit by losing 1% of subscribers? What if the anti-Israel readership 10% of all subscribers. That's a tiny minority. But, again, are there any business people here who wouldn't mind losing 10% of revenue?

Every day editors make decisions they might personally disagree with in an effort to maintain readership levels. So Ms.'s refusal to run that ad says nothing about Ms.'s hostility towards Israel. It's refusal likely says something about some segment of its readership. But, really, we can't know how large that segment is.
1.11.2008 2:27pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
Feminism has been irrelevant since 1920.

As Donald Kaul wrote, in a democracy, it's hard to generate much sympathy for an oppressed majority.
1.11.2008 2:27pm
Ralph Phelan (mail):
Every day editors make decisions they might personally disagree with in an effort to maintain readership levels. So Ms.'s refusal to run that ad says nothing about Ms.'s hostility towards Israel. It's refusal likely says something about some segment of its readership. But, really, we can't know how large that segment is.

Well done. You should be working for Ron Paul's campaign.
1.11.2008 2:31pm
Ralph Phelan (mail):
For those who want to voice their opinions to the magazine's editors:
I doubt this will accomplish anything useful.

Checking whether your local public library carries Ms. and, if so, lodging a protest seems to me much more useful. Also useful may contacting Ms.'s other advertisers, and asking them if they want to be associated with this decision.
1.11.2008 2:34pm
Ralph Phelan (mail):
To be precise, "their lingering hostility to Israel" should probably be "their ever growing hostility to Israel."
1.11.2008 2:36pm
Mr. Liberal:

That said, I do agree with Prof. Volokh's bottom line -- Ms. has every right to make editorial decisions regarding from whom it will accept ads, but this is a decision with which I disagree.


This is well said.

I actually disagree with the Ms. Magazine decision not to run the ad as well. But, I think saying we should "condemn" them for not running it is going too far.

I wouldn't have made the same decision if I were the editor of the magazine, but I do not think that I care that much one way or the other that this ad, which I do consider kind of boring, was not run.
1.11.2008 2:37pm
DavidBernstien (mail):
Well, Ms. can obviously clear it all up by explaining why it rejected the ad; its propensity to "cause controversy" is hardly a reason for a magazine that courts controversy like Ms. does with its own, non-advertising material, to reject an ad.
1.11.2008 2:43pm
Elliot Reed (mail):
Is there even an implication of "compare Israel to its enemies"? The ad looks like generic feel-goodism to me, though of course others seem to disagree. My guess would be that this is more of a business judgment—their readers, who presumably tend to be further to the left, probably include a fair number of people who are vehemently pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel. So the editors decided to avoid angering their subscriber base. Though it's distressing that their subscriber base is so hostile to Israel that they'd get angry at something this innocuous. I'm hardly pro-Israel (the Palestinian tactic of purposefully slaughtering innocent civilians is considerably worse than the Israelis' merely insufficient concern for collateral damage, but I still regard the latter as unjustified) but this is one of many areas where the Israelis are way ahead.
1.11.2008 2:46pm
Anderson (mail):
I'd forgotten all about "believe me, don't believe my sworn affidavit" Broddrick. As the man said, drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, and ....
1.11.2008 2:56pm
Constantin:
Maybe the magazine is just trying to save room for a feature celebrating the life of Benazir Bhutto.

Or maybe not.
1.11.2008 3:12pm
rarango (mail):
"As the man said, drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, and ...." is that like dragging a watermelon through the welfare office, Anderson? which comment is more offensive to you?
1.11.2008 3:14pm
Timber (mail):

Give me a break. There are some people who despise Israel on the left. But there are also some people who despise it on the right.


Mainstream liberals have a lot in common with the extremist right wing.
1.11.2008 3:20pm
Timber (mail):

"believe me, don't believe my sworn affidavit" Broddrick


Hey, Monica's affidavit was false too...she just happened to have the special sauce that showed it was.
1.11.2008 3:22pm
gasman (mail):
I keep looking at the proposed add and don't see any message. Nothing pro israel, nothing anti israel; nothing pro/against women; just no clear idea what the intended message might be.
But if I chose not to run it in a publication I controlled there would be the same howls, lots of nasty accusations about me, and every damn one would be wrong. If I were to choose to not run this add I would be no more sending a message than the add sends to me.
Ms. is a private entity, takes no federal dollars, and does not have to observe any of the ammendments that impose limits on government but upon no one else.
1.11.2008 3:23pm
Yankev (mail):

and when a woman turns out to be a conservative/hawkish type, she is not "authentically woman" in the same way clarence thomas or sowell are not "authentically black".


Justice Beinisch, at the least, has impeccable left wing credentials. Foreign Minister Livni is not exactly a hawk's dream politician either.

As to whether the editorial decision results from business reasons or sympathy, we can only guess. But the refusal to return AJC's calls hardly makes it look like a dispassionate business decision.
1.11.2008 3:29pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
psychdoc: "The difference is that right-wing militias are fringe movements, while anti-Israeli and anti-semitic views are openly espoused by relatively main-stream elements of the left."

I think it's fair to claim that Power Line is considered part of "relatively main-stream elements" of the right. After all, the major GOP candidates have all set up shop in the Power Line Forum. It turns out that commenters in the Power Line Forum have "openly espoused" Holocaust denial (see especially here but also here). I think it's widely accepted that Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitism.

I realize that it's often not fair to blame a forum operator for what commenters say. However, in this instance, the Holocaust denialists are folks who post very,very frequently (although usually they are discussing other subjects). I think this is important to notice. It's not a case of hit and run, where someone shows up and is never seen again. This is a case of Holocaust denialists being welcomed as longstanding members of the community.

More importantly, the administrators are aware of the situation, and they did nothing, as far as I can tell. How do I know they're aware of the situation? Hinderaker posted in the thread, saying this:

antisemitism is a phenomenon of the left


He posted that at about 1 am, on a Sunday morning. At about 10 am, I pointed out this example of Holocaust denial:

And this Holocaust crap - geeeeeeeeeeez people, get over it


A little later, I posted other examples. Hinderaker never posted again in that thread. As far as I can tell, he has never said anything to condemn the comments I brought to his attention. Likewise for his fellow forum administrators.

The person who made the comment about "this Holocaust crap" has now posted at Power Line almost 10,000 times. He is almost certaintly in the 99th percentile, with regard to commenting there frequently.

If you can find a comparable example, demonstrating that "anti-semitic views are openly espoused by relatively main-stream elements of the left," that would be helpful.

My comment is also addressed to timber, who said this: "mainstream liberals have a lot in common with the extremist right wing." I'd like to see proof of that. I think I've just shown that the mainstream right wing has a lot in common with the extremist right wing.
1.11.2008 3:32pm
Yankev (mail):
Whit, in the case of the Duke team, all of the evidence from beginning to end showed that the accusation was a complete fabrication. And there was no history of acts similar to the acts they were accused of. Can Pres. Clinton say the same, or should his past and subsequent actions make us more and not less suspicious of him?
1.11.2008 3:34pm
Ralph Phelan (mail):
this example of Holocaust denial:
And this Holocaust crap - geeeeeeeeeeez people, get over it


Huh? While tastelessly lacking in compassion, this comment is not Holocaust denial.
1.11.2008 3:37pm
Connie:
Does anyone know if Ms even accepts ads now? I know there was a time when they were publishing on subscription revenue alone, and refused ads specifically because of the loss of editorial control that brings.

Leave it to [certain elements] to manufacture a controversy. "They wouldn't accept our ad! Must be anti-Semitic." Oh, wait, you mean they don't accept any ads?
1.11.2008 3:39pm
Lech Tizdayen:
Where was AJC when the woman had to go back to the bus or get beat down? Or when women had to use separate sidewalks?

Until those issues are addressed, AJC can STFU about Israeli feminism.
1.11.2008 3:40pm
Timber (mail):

I think it's fair to claim that Power Line is considered part of "relatively main-stream elements" of the right. After all, the major GOP candidates have all set up shop in the Power Line Forum. It turns out that commenters in the Power Line Forum have "openly espoused" Holocaust denial (see especially here but also here). I think it's widely accepted that Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitism.



Yes. A few Powerline commenters is indicative of the Republican party.

Dig deep son. On the otherhand, open hostility to Isreal and anti-semitism is a daily staple on myriad of progressive site-. Kos, Huffington Post, Democratic Underground. So much so that Lanny Davis wrote an op-ed warning about the anti-semitism running rampant in the Dem party.
1.11.2008 3:40pm
holdfast (mail):
The difference is that most supporters of Israel do not freak out if someone runs a puff piece or a puff ad on some Palestinian female member of government - if fact, I would see it as a (very) mild sign of hope. Supporters of the Palestinians on the other hand are far more likely to freak out - maybe accuse someone of racism, maybe issue a fatwa - who knows? Basically, supportters of Isreal (and this does include many non-looney Dems) lose out by virtue of the fact that we are more mature and understand that not everything will go our way.

As to PowerLine - I cannot speak to all the commenters, but the operators of the site are very pro-Isreal and pro-Jewish.

On a relatged note, the Germans seem to be getting back to their roots. I think that's so sweet.
1.11.2008 3:45pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ralph: "While tastelessly lacking in compassion, this comment is not Holocaust denial."

Did you really not bother clicking through in order to see the context?
1.11.2008 3:47pm
rarango (mail):
I am guessing that Ms knows the demographics of its readership well enough to think this ad would have cost them some of their readers. I suspect it was more of a business decision than a political decision. In short, Eugene's bottom line stands as far as I can see.
1.11.2008 3:55pm
Timber (mail):
I am fairly certain that one or more of the Powerline bloggers is jewish themselves.
1.11.2008 3:56pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
timber: "A few Powerline commenters is indicative of the Republican party."

The proof I showed is not just about the behavior of "a few Powerline commenters." I showed proof regarding the behavior of John Hinderaker, Time Magazine's 2004 Blogger of the Year.

"open hostility to Isreal and anti-semitism is a daily staple on myriad of progressive site"

If you don't see a distinction between "hostility to Isreal" as compared with "anti-semitism," then there's probably no reason for me take anything you say seriously. So maybe you could indicate whether or not you acknowledge the distinction.

Also, I'm not that impressed by vague claims that aren't backed up by specific examples.

"Lanny Davis wrote an op-ed warning about the anti-semitism running rampant in the Dem party"

His snide pro-Lieberman column is very short on facts, aside from a few comments he cherry-picked. I refer you to what you said:

Yes. A few Powerline commenters is indicative of the Republican party.


There are many differences between the proof Davis brought, as compared with the proof I brought. One very important difference is that I showed very good reason to believe that Hinderaker was personally aware of the material.

I didn't do the thing you accused me of doing. But the thing you accused me of doing is exacly what Davis did.
1.11.2008 3:58pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"Basically, they know that this ad will cause a lot of controversy, because the message behind the ad is, as you suggest, a comparison between Israel and its neighbors."

What's the controversy? It's a simple fact that those three women occupy responsible decision making roles in Israeli society. It's also a fact that women don't occupy such roles in Arab societies.

Perhaps the controversy is that some people think the news of success of one society should be suppressed because others societies have failed? If so, then we can only publish news of Israeli success when the Arabs catch up. Could be a long wait...
1.11.2008 4:00pm
ejo:
probably because if you scratch someone who is only "hostile to israel", you usually find someone who is not all that keen on jews either. usually, they can only think of one nation on the face of the Earth that should not exist and, by gosh, it's full of jews. I realize correlation and causation aren't the same thing, but I don't believe that much in coincidence either.
1.11.2008 4:03pm
Elliot Reed (mail):
Lech Tizdayen—one incident in which one woman was attacked hardly seems like an indictment of anyone but the individual attackers and the bus driver who did nothing, but learning that Israel has an official "women go to the back of the bus" policy for at least some buses is pretty distressing. The segregated sidewalks don't sound good either. I have no idea whether the AJC has said anything about that stuff.

They're still ahead of us as far as women in government go, though. We haven't had any female Chief Justices or heads of government yet.
1.11.2008 4:09pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
holdfast: "As to PowerLine - I cannot speak to all the commenters, but the operators of the site are very pro-Isreal and pro-Jewish."

I am very aware that they make that claim. However, I think I have demonstrated that the claim is somewhat opportunistic. In other words, I think they are inclined to condemn Holocaust denial when it comes from Ahmadinejad, but not when it comes from their own loyal fans. That's not the way I define "pro-Jewish."

timber: "I am fairly certain that one or more of the Powerline bloggers is jewish themselves."

Indeed. And I am fairly certain that this will not be the first or last time that a Jew is caught condoning or even promoting anti-Semitism.
1.11.2008 4:10pm
hattio1:
A couple of comments,

First, I have to agree with other commenters who say that being anti-Israel (or more specifically against their actions) is not the same as being anti-semitic. And, ejo, I dont' believe that Israel should not exist. I just think that if Israel is serious about peace they would use the same tactics on their own settlers as they do on Palestinians, issue a date for them to be out of the houses, then run the houses over with a tank. When Israel does that, and stops authorizing further settlements, I'll be pro-Israel. (FWIW, the "collateral damage" doesn't bother me much as Palestinian terrorists, by and large, hide in civillian populations).

Secondly, a thought. Could AJC have submitted this ad for the press advantage of being turned down? I'm not necessarily advocating that viewpoint, just want the opinions of those with more knowledge. Several commenters have noted that the ad is fairly sloppily done. Ms. is known to be quite liberal. But, I know nothing of AJC or their common tactics, so I don't know if that would be totally in or out of character.
1.11.2008 4:15pm
Anderson (mail):
"As the man said, drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, and ...." is that like dragging a watermelon through the welfare office, Anderson? which comment is more offensive to you?

???

The watermelon comment is implicitly racist. The $100 bill comment is derogatory towards the poor. In this country, mocking the poor is much less offensive than mocking blacks. Vote for John Edwards if you would like to change that.
1.11.2008 4:24pm
Timber (mail):
Daily Kos

Free speech does not mean that you have a right (0+ / 10-)

to invitations to any and all fora where people do not want to listen to you.

That so ?
then why is it that the Zionazi Horowitz demanding freedom of speech in universities - apparently you and other Zionanzis seems to believe that people should be forced to listen to that yapping idiot Horowitz - why ?? because he spews that bS calim that Jews are supposedly special ?

by DonR on Mon Feb 05, 2007 at 11:59:13 AM PST

Jews should be ashamed of their (1+ / 18-)

mafioso culture.

It's a cultural problem they need to deal with amongst themselves, like yesterday. Liberal Jews need to be more assertive in telling their extremist brothers where to park their whackjob agendas. Lord knows Jews won't let anyone outside their circle criticize them without screaming "Antisemite!!!" (Juan of course is well aware of that brand of bullcrap) like a bunch of lemmings, so they need to take care of it within their own community.

As it stands, their crooked culture of deamonization and extremism is as much an embarrassment to America as rightwing cristo-fascist culture.

Joe Lieberman exists for a reason. And America should be ashamed of him and his supporters. I think we're seeing that.

by ghostbuster on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:04:19 PM PST

actually now I deny the holocaust (0+ / 18-)

before it was just kind of a curious "fails the smell" test but after further research I've decided I can offically deny any "final solution."

The jews were forced labor in a coal-gasification to supply the German's dwindling eastern front gas needs. Zyklon B was a delousing agent. The Po9lish gov't has reduced the official death count at Aushwitz from 3 million to 600,000. 3 million bodies could never be cremated in the amount of necessary time. No functioning gas chamber was ever found (except the one built be the Soviets, after the war). The aushwitz commander's confession was coerced (and written in English), and the Nuremberg trials were a kangaroo court. None of the evidence presented to prove the existance of confined-space gas chambers would hol dup in any American court and I find that troubling.

But your mind is made up. Good for you. So don't talk to me. I really don't care all that much about this, but at least I smell bullshit when I see it, unlike a mindless drone like you.

cum lade in chemistry

"He lives most life whoever breathes most air." Elizabeth Barrett Browning

"Reduce carbon emissions. Now." - SeattleChris

by SeattleChris on Mon Dec 18, 2006 at 03:10:36 PM PST

Please forgive Mel Gibson ... (0+ / 6-)

for speaking the truth ... as they say in Canada ... in vino veritas eh!

LIVE FREE OR DIE

by Easterling on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 10:14:09 PM PST



Here is a primer Holocaust Denial, Anti-Semitism, and other Daily Kos HATE Meta
1.11.2008 4:25pm
Hoosier:
"there are very strong opinions” on the subject "

Opinions regarding whether the women in the add hold those offices? Because if there's not a debate on that, then shame on Ms.
1.11.2008 4:34pm
Hoosier:
"In this country, mocking the poor is much less offensive than mocking blacks. Vote for John Edwards if you would like to change that."

So when Edwards is president it will be more acceptable to mock blacks?
1.11.2008 4:35pm
Philistine (mail):
According to JTA

The magazine's explanation is:


Ms. magazine's executive editor, Kathy Spillar, disputes that version, telling JTA the ad showed political support for one of Israel's parties and thus violated magazine standards.

"We only take mission-driven ads," Spillar said. "Because two of the women in this ad were from the same political party," that showed favoritism, and the magazine's policy is not to get involved in the domestic politics of another country.


The article also notes that Ms. is running a two-page article on Livni in the current issue.
1.11.2008 4:48pm
Ralph Phelan (mail):
If you don't see a distinction between "hostility to Isreal" as compared with "anti-semitism,"

When someone holds Israel to different standards than every other nation on Earth, I figure it's probably antisemitism.
1.11.2008 4:48pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"Anti-Semitism' has been mentioned. Can anyone tell us what it is before we get any further? Otherwise we risk joining all those erudite discussions of the past where everyone has an brilliant opinion on something they can't define.
1.11.2008 4:52pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
timber: "actually now I deny the holocaust (0+ / 18-)"

Maybe you don't know enough about how Kos works to able to comprehend the text you're reading and quoting. See those numbers? Do you really not know what they mean? "0+" means that when the person said "actually now I deny the holocaust," the number of people who expressed approval was this: zero. "18-" means that 18 people clicked on the troll-rating button, to condemn this person as a troll, and to remove the comment from view.

If you take a look at the diary you cited, you'll notice that it attracted over 400 comments. And it's easy to see the ratings these comments received. The highest-rated comments were the ones that strongly condemned the offensive speech.

Incidentally, there have been pretty clear examples of folks showing up at Kos and making offensive statements expressly for the purpose of discrediting the blog.

Kos has over 100,000 registered members. The average weekday traffic is about 500,000 visits. The number of new comments posted daily is in the thousands. In a group that size, there is always going to be someone making an offensive statement. There's lots of evidence that those statements are quickly condemned by many, including other members and administrators. So nice job bringing proof that indicates the opposite of what you hope it indicates.

The example I raised shows that at Power Line, things are different. And the most important thing about my example is that Hinderaker didn't speak up. Still hasn't, as far as I know.
1.11.2008 4:57pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ralph: "When someone holds Israel to different standards than every other nation on Earth, I figure it's probably antisemitism."

When someone treats every criticism of Israel as a form of anti-Semitism, I figure it's probably dishonesty.
1.11.2008 4:57pm
Ralph Phelan (mail):
jukeboxgrad:

So, Powerline's failure to indiviually denounce every idiotic post on their site makes them antisemites?


As to whether the quote was "denialist" or just "dismissive," here's some more context:

fully 20 million of them [people who died in WWII] were Russians whom you don’t hear still píssing and moaning


which tends to support my interpretation that he's saying "get over it already" rather than "it didn't happen."

I'm not agreeing with the "get over it," merely pointing out that your claim of Holocaust denial is incorrect.
1.11.2008 4:58pm
rarango (mail):
Anderson: re the 20 dollar bill thing: that gem came from James Carville as I am sure you know--it is nice to know that the democratic party folks mock their biggest constituency! I actually find both comments repulsive: one is classist and the other racist. And I am actually Giuliani supporter.
1.11.2008 4:59pm
Marcus1 (mail) (www):
I read the message simply that Israel is progressive when it comes to women. I can see how people read it differently... the comparison that entered my mind was with the United States rather than neighbors, though I suppose I could see it either way.

I think the magazine is harder to judge without knowing what other ads they approve. Even then, what if they ok a tourism ad for Belgium but not one defending human rights in Turkey? I don't know that they should be condemned, but a better explanation is probably fair.

On the other hand, I just recalled these ads I was somewhat shocked to see in the DC metro a few months ago, and have to wonder whether that was a better editorial choice...
1.11.2008 5:03pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ralph: "Powerline's failure to indiviually denounce every idiotic post on their site makes them antisemites?"

No, but we find the straw man entertaining. First of all, the posts weren't just "idiotic." They were promoting Holocaust denial. Second, I'm not making a point about "every idiotic post on their site." I'm making a point about posts that were brought to Hinderaker's personal attention, in a thread where he was participating.

"which tends to support my interpretation that he's saying 'get over it already' rather than 'it didn't happen.' "

For whatever reason, you are either not looking at the evidence very carefully, or you're pretending it doesn't exist. Speaking of denial. I guess you didn't notice this, even though I already posted the link:

the articles on the Treblinka concentration camp did bring up some discomforting questions. According to the article, and many provided links, the claim is made that no forensic evidence exists of the burial of the burned remains of 800,000 people at the Treblinka site. … highly accurate surveys involving ground- searching sonar of the entire Treblinka site have revealed zero human remains. From watching CSI, we all know that if 800,000 cremated bodies were buried somewhere, there would be tons of bone, ash, and teeth buried there today.


Let me know if you're claiming those words mean something other than "it didn't happen."

"your claim of Holocaust denial is incorrect"

Really? I think the word for what you're doing is denial.
1.11.2008 5:12pm
PersonFromPorlock:

As the man said, drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, and ....

... you'll probably catch the DNC.
1.11.2008 5:19pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
jukeboxgrad,

I happen to be a regular reader of power line. None of the authors of that blog have ever posted anything remotely antisemitic or wrote comments that could be construed that way. In addition, their positions are in general pro-Isreal. So you are inventing or imagining the anti-semitism.

You yourself said that it isn't fair to judge a blog by its comments section... and then you proceeded to do precisely that. Whiplash, much?

You have an agenda to slime people you disagree with, and that's just not something that people are required to be civil to you about when you try it.
1.11.2008 5:23pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
porlock: "As the man said, drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, and ....

... you'll probably catch the DNC."

Right. Whereas if you drag a portfolio of fraudulent stock options through the golf course, you'll probably catch the GOP.
1.11.2008 5:24pm
Ralph Phelan (mail):
"Second, I'm not making a point about "every idiotic post on their site." I'm making a point about posts that were brought to Hinderaker's personal attention..."

So? If he's running an "open" comments section, the fact that he's got freaks and wierdos posting on his blog will strike him as neither surprising nor interesting.
1.11.2008 5:24pm
Smokey:
Kos has over 100,000 registered members. The average weekday traffic is about 500,000 visits. The number of new comments posted daily is in the thousands. In a group that size, there is always going to be someone making an offensive statement...
See, it's OK for the troll to back his libtard site -- but Powerline is held to a different standard.

Oops, I fed the troll, didn't I? My bad.
1.11.2008 5:30pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
Ralph:

Power line runs a semi-open comments section. It does require a registration, but bans don't often happen (so far as I can tell).

What we are witnessing here is a tantrum by someone who wanted to get another commenter banned or his comments removed, and didn't get his way, for whatever reason.
1.11.2008 5:31pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ryan: "I happen to be a regular reader of power line. None of the authors of that blog have ever posted anything remotely antisemitic or wrote comments that could be construed that way."

I didn't claim they did. Here's what I did: I proved Hinderaker was silent when personally confronted with Holocaust denial on his own forum.

"You yourself said that it isn't fair to judge a blog by its comments section... and then you proceeded to do precisely that. Whiplash, much?"

Irrational, much? It's not "fair to judge a blog by its comments section," except when you know that the administrator is personally aware of multiple highly offensive comments and doesn't lift a finger to condemn them.

"You have an agenda to slime people you disagree with"

You have an agenda to dismiss facts that make you uncomfortable.
1.11.2008 5:33pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ralph: "If he's running an 'open' comments section, the fact that he's got freaks and wierdos posting on his blog will strike him as neither surprising nor interesting."

Sorry, but that's incredibly lame. I'm not claiming that Hinderaker had an obligation to feel 'surprised' or 'interested.' I'm claiming he had an obligation to condemn hate speech on his forum, when it was personally brought to his attention. Especially when one of the "weirdos" happens to be one of the top commenters there.

Maybe you didn't notice what Hinderaker wrote, in his blog post that headed the thread:

Check out this thread, which is nakedly antisemitic. (HT: LGF.) The thread was started by a nut; more Politico posters have joined in with the usual sickening antisemitic nonsense, including bogus quotes from the Founding Fathers. This is the kind of thing we are used to seeing at hard-left sites like Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. But with top leaders of the Democratic Party now posting at those sites, it is hard to see any boundary between the "respectable" left, which Politico wants to be a part of, and the cesspool you can catch a glimpse of today on Politico.com.

I'm sure the people who run Politico would be horrified by this thread, and will take it down when they find out about it. (Funny that hasn't happened yet.) But that won't make the problem go away.


Hinderaker didn't take the position that the folks running Politico should find the presence of "freaks and wierdos … neither surprising nor interesting." Hinderaker took the position that the folks running Politico would be expected not just to condemn the hate speech, but to "take it down when they find out about it."

Meanwhile, when the shoe was on the other foot literally a day later, Hinderaker lost his ability to speak. The hypocrisy is pretty breathtaking.
1.11.2008 5:47pm
Gary Anderson (mail):
I agree with this:
I dunno, but it seems a little strange to me to see an advertisement for a foreign nation in a U.S. magazine. Not to say that the message is nice, that Israel has women leaders I think is a great thing... but I don't see what's wrong with a magazine being keen on the idea that they should have advertisements that promote donations to foreign nations- it might be a little backwards and nationalistic, but I think its a reach to assume antisemitism.

What exactly is the ad advertising? Tourism? Immigration of women to Israel? Donations to the AJC?

Ask yourself this: if you want Ms. to get into the vague political or international advertising game, how would y'all feel if some other group then submitted a photo of American Rachel Corrie getting run over by a tank (deliberately or not) under the caption, "THIS IS ISRAEL?"

Or pictures of dead women and children, little Palestinian girls, killed by Israel strikes (again, caused deliberately or intentionally, no illumininating copy just, "THIS TOO IS ISRAEL")

I can totatlly understand why this type of ad would be rejected, just as I understand why some schools have gone to requiring content-free writing on shirts and clothes that students wear. Because once you crack that door open to vague statements of support, you invite others to also propagandize their messages.

Frankly, from the unflatting photos of those three faces (maybe it looks better in color than black and white?) and as a non-devoted follower of all things Israel, I'm not exactly sure what message that would send to non-political readers of the magazine.

"Condemn" away but consider that the writer here, and probably many of the commenters, come into this ad with a much different outlook that a good majority of American women who might see it and be like, "What the heck is this all about?"

At the very least, they might want to add written copy explaining something like, "Here in Israel, we not only verbally support the inclusion of women into public leadership roles, but we also practice what we preach." In this way, the ad might be seen as nudging American readers to consider why there are relatively so few American women in leadership positions.

Looking again, I think the post with the Star of David in the middle is designed to make American women sympathize with the beleaguered foreign state -- to hype Israel, not powerful political women in general. Otherwise they might include women like the assisanted Bhutto, Sen. Clinton, Margaret Thatcher and others who have served their countries over the years.

I think they were correct in rejecting it as just to vague an advertisement for the AMerican public. You see what you want, others see what they see. An endorsement of women, or subtly of the Jewish state of Israel? The latter really has no place in a magazine that caters to women of all faiths.

(Again, consider if they have in the past run photos of the Virgin Mary at Christmastime with the message, "THIS IS THE MOST REVERED WOMAN IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH." and then an ad for say, the Knights of Columbus. For political reasons, that one is likely to be rejected too. And somehow I doubt any of us would condemn that editorial decision.)
1.11.2008 5:47pm
Federal Dog:
"the only discernable difference between Speaker Pelosi and Speaker Itzik apparently is that Speaker Pelosi is not Israeli."


Well, that and the fact that Nancy Pelosi is an idiot. This is the woman who said of the Kelo decision: "It's almost as if God has spoken."
1.11.2008 5:49pm
Passerby (mail):
Here's a beefcake-based revision to make the ad more in keeping with Ms. Magazine:

Safe for Almost all Work Environments
Revised Ad for Ms. Magazine Demographics
1.11.2008 5:49pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
Well, lets test your little theory against reality, shall we?

Heading on back to the power line blog and searching the front page for 'Isreal'...

Item number 1: "The ad Ms. doesn't want you to see"... comes to the same concusion that the VC did: "I think it is fair to say that in most parts of the United States it would be deemed an utterly innocuous ad."

Item number 2: "The diplomacy of as if", where he criticizes Bush for treating the palestinians 'as if' they were actually seeking peace.

Obviously an anti-Isreal agenda at work here!

Right now, the Isreal coverage is being bumped by all the election news, but even so there's 2 examples, ready and available to anyone who bothers to type www.powerlineblog.com into their web browser instead of taking a jilted troll's word for it.

Are those the kinds of posts anti-semites make? Only if you use your sooper-sekkret power line fassist-detectin dekoder ring, apparently.
1.11.2008 5:50pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
smokey: "it's OK for the troll to back his libtard site -- but Powerline is held to a different standard"

Uh, no. I'm holding them to the same standard. But I don't expect you to have the minimal intellectual acuity required to grasp the facts that I described.

For a good example of someone with a double standard, read this comment and my response to it.
1.11.2008 5:52pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
How deep into denial do you have to be, to quote a post beginning with:


Check out this thread, which is nakedly antisemitic.


And expect a reasonable reader to conclude that the author of the post seeking out and condemning the anti-semitism must be himself anti-semitic?

At WORST, we have a case of a blogger incompletely policing his comments section. And as for jbg's whine that he TOLLLLLD them about the posts, guess what?

If I had a blog and a commenter like jbg showed up, it'd probably be a week max before he earned himself into the email's bozo bin, and I bet that's exactly what happened. Jbg was probably whining about other commenters before the incident, and got spamblocked therefore no one saw his oh-so-important complaint.

And the best part is, I have exactly as much proof of the above theory as jbg has regarding the motives of Hindraker not to delete the comments in question.
1.11.2008 6:02pm
whit:
"Whit, in the case of the Duke team, all of the evidence from beginning to end showed that the accusation was a complete fabrication."

at the beginning, it Strongly suggested that. as time went on, it became more and more clear it was almost certainly a fabrication.

i made that very point at feministing.com repeatedly. the anti-science, anti-logic, anti-realitybased posters there (which made up about 95%+ of the responses in those threads) could not accept that because feminists are way more interested in metanarratives, "power" issues, and denigrating white males of "privilege" than they are in whether or not the woman was ACTUALLY RAPED.

" And there was no history of acts similar to the acts they were accused of. Can Pres. Clinton say the same, or should his past and subsequent actions make us more and not less suspicious of him?"

i'm not going down the clinton bunny trail. not addresing him at all... except to say it's ironic that the same leftists who pushed for all these sex harassment laws felt free to ignore them when the accused was bill clinton
1.11.2008 6:08pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
First, I don't understand why the American Jewish Congress is running ads on behalf of Israel. Surely Israel can run its own PR ads. Why do they need a kindly American uncle to place ads for them? Further, is the American Jewish Congress registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act? By running an ad meant to appeal to women to make them more sympathetic to Israel, the AJC is engaging in political activities in the interests of Israel, because the term “political activities” means any activity that the person engaging in believes will in any way influence any section of the public with reference to the political or public interests of the foreign principal Israel.

Second, what is the reader supposed to make of the message? Three female politicians are Israel? Isn't there a lot more to Israel than three women politicians. Consider that The Israeli Friends of the US, if such an organization existed, could place an ad in a local women's magazine showing Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Condoleeza Rice, and Hillary Clinton over the headline, "This is America." And what the heck would it mean?

Third, because any ad run in Ms. is implicitly approved by Ms., the vagueness of the ad's meaning creates a problem -- what, exactly, are they endorsing?

Finally, what if the American Islamist Association had asked Ms. to run an ad featuring Benazir Bhutto, with the headline "I Am Pakistan"? Who would think they should have run it?

So I can see why a magazine would prefer not to run an ad with a vague political message paid for by a third party.
1.11.2008 6:28pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ryan: "Power line runs a semi-open comments section. It does require a registration, but bans don't often happen (so far as I can tell)."

Correct.

"What we are witnessing here is a tantrum by someone who wanted to get another commenter banned or his comments removed, and didn't get his way, for whatever reason."

What we are witnessing here is someone who likes to make things up. I've said nothing to indicate that I'm in favor of banning, or of having comments removed. All I've said is that an administrator is obliged to do something other than sit on his hands, when it comes to his attention that he's hosting offensive material. Oddly enough, this is essentially the same position taken by Hinderaker himself when he was standing in his glass house throwing gratuitous, hypocritical stones at politico.
1.11.2008 6:36pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ryan: "Heading on back to the power line blog and searching the front page for 'Isreal' "

I realize that they make a lot of statements in support of Israel, but that support starts to look superficial when they tolerate Holocaust denial in their own forum.

"… expect a reasonable reader to conclude that the author of the post seeking out and condemning the anti-semitism must be himself anti-semitic?"

A "reasonable reader" looking at all the facts is likely "to conclude that the author of the post seeking out and condemning the anti-semitism" is in the business of seeking out and condemning anti-Semitism only when it serves his purpose of scoring cheap political points. When he had a perfect chance to seek out and condemn the anti-Semitism on his own site, he looked the other way. Talk is cheap. Especially Hinderaker's talk. And yours.

"At WORST, we have a case of a blogger incompletely policing his comments section"

I haven't claimed that an administrator has an obligation to 'completely police' their comments section. I've claimed only what Hinderaker himself suggested: when administrators learn they are hosting hate speech, they are obliged to do something other than be silent.

"got spamblocked therefore no one saw his oh-so-important complaint."

My complaint was posted on a thread where Hinderaker had commented. It was not conveyed via email. I can see that you're not making much of an effort to grasp the basic facts of the matter.

"regarding the motives of Hindraker not to delete the comments in question"

I have never suggested that the comments should have been deleted.
1.11.2008 7:00pm
Lior:
As an Israeli, here's some speculation about this ad:



I looks like a straightforward attempt to generate positive feelings about Israel from the readership. My guess is that the point was not to compare Israel to any particular country (certainly not its neighbours) but rather create the impression that Israeli society is fairly egalitarian. If any comparison was intended, it was to the US, which has yet to have a female President or Chief Justice (perhaps they should have included a photo of Golda Meir, Israeli PM '69-'74). I think the longer-term goal is to get people to buy Israeli products, perhaps go to Israel as tourists, and at least not talk about boycotting Israel.


Some facts: Itzik and Livni are not from the same party (Itzik belongs to Labour, Livni to the right-wing Kadima [and formerly of the Likud]). Beinisch is certainly not a politician -- in Israel judges may not express political opinions.
1.11.2008 7:01pm
Seamus (mail):
When someone holds Israel to different standards than every other nation on Earth, I figure it's probably antisemitism.

I often see people accused of antisemitism when they try to hold Israel to the *same* standards they'd apply to every other nation on earth.
1.11.2008 7:32pm
Seamus (mail):
But the job of Ms. editors is to sell magazines and not turn off subscribers.

And here I thought the job of Ms. editors was to advance the feminist cause. Silly me.

(And I'm with Connie. When the hell did they start taking ads again anyway?)
1.11.2008 7:36pm
Seamus (mail):
probably because if you scratch someone who is only "hostile to israel", you usually find someone who is not all that keen on jews either. usually, they can only think of one nation on the face of the Earth that should not exist and, by gosh, it's full of jews.

So can we make analogous conclusions about those who don't believe the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus or an independent Palestine or Kosovo or Euskal Herria ought to exist?
1.11.2008 7:40pm
Seamus (mail):
"We only take mission-driven ads," Spillar said. "Because two of the women in this ad were from the same political party," that showed favoritism, and the magazine's policy is not to get involved in the domestic politics of another country.

That explanation would have held water if all three were from the same party. As it is, is sounds like a lame excuse. What is Spillar implying? "We'll take your ad if each party is represented by 1.5 women"? Talk about Solomonic!
1.11.2008 7:49pm
Lior:
"Because two of the women in this ad were from the same political party,"

As I noted above, this statement is false. Livni belongs to a right-wing party, Itzik to a left-wing party, and Beinisch is a-political (she's a judge and can therefore have no public political opinions). I saw the statement in some comments but have just realized it was apparently made by the magazine. That should tell us enough about their level of professionalism.
1.11.2008 8:28pm
holdfast (mail):
"Finally, what if the American Islamist Association had asked Ms. to run an ad featuring Benazir Bhutto, with the headline "I Am Pakistan"? Who would think they should have run it?"

- I'd laugh my ass off, and maybe criticize the accuracy, but would not care if they ran it. It does not defame anyone - it would, presumably, be trying for a positive spin. Of course, some jihad johnny might object to the message and bomb the maagazine...
1.11.2008 8:37pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):

I often see people accused of antisemitism when they try to hold Israel to the *same* standards they'd apply to every other nation on earth.


I have to question the "often". Where are the calls for boycotts of Saudi Arabia or Sudan, whose human rights records are infinitely worse than that of Israel? Why is there such great concern about the Palestinian "refugees", most of whom are only refugees under a special definition created just for them, at variance with all other definitions, and not about Jewish refugees from Muslim countries, or about the Chinese occupation of Tibet? Overall, there is a huge bias against Israel.
1.11.2008 9:15pm
Gary Anderson (mail):
Where are the calls for boycotts of Saudi Arabia or Sudan, whose human rights records are infinitely worse than that of Israel?

Maybe because of the very real perception that America is complicit in Israel's crimes against humanity by providing direct support, whereas our funding of Saudia Arabia is more indirect -- cash in exhange for oil.

What does America get from our Israeli support of the mistreatment of Palestinian refugees -- the absolution from Holocaust guilt really is wearing thin.

If American taxpayers were not directly called on to support Israel, I suspect not only would we care a good deal less about what they do, but also that a lot of that bad things they get away with would end when they were forced to stand along, defend themselves alone, and prove their "independence".

Just a thought. I don't want my tax money being used to kill civilians in Israel, anymore than I condone it being used to kill hundreds of thousands in Iraq.
1.11.2008 9:46pm
Gary Anderson (mail):
but also that a lot of thE bad things they get away with would end when they were forced to stand alonE, defend themselves alone, and prove their "independence".


Not In My Name.
It's not the Christian way, it's not working, and many resent having to pay the bills for it.
1.11.2008 9:48pm
SenatorX (mail):
I think one of the entirely justifiable ways to judge a country is by how it treats its women citizens (or other minorities). I do think it is ironic that they pulled this ad considering their supposed purpose.
1.12.2008 12:30am
Grover Gardner (mail):
"Where are the calls for boycotts of Saudi Arabia or Sudan, whose human rights records are infinitely worse than that of Israel?"

Where have you been? Do yourself a favor--google "boycott saudi arabia," "boycott sudan" and "boycott china tibet" and see what pops up. Sheesh.
1.12.2008 12:59am
Grover Gardner (mail):
And may I add that this is about the dumbest damn thread I've read here in a long time? Who gives a flying fart if Ms. runs this ad or not?
1.12.2008 1:04am
Grover Gardner (mail):
It's an ugly frickin' ad.
1.12.2008 1:05am
Grover Gardner (mail):
It's an ugly frickin' ad. I wouldn't want it in my magazine.
1.12.2008 1:06am
Grover Gardner (mail):
Sorry for the double post.
1.12.2008 1:06am
Lior:
Retraction: it seems that Ms. Itzik quit labour for Kadima, so she is from the same party as Livni.
1.12.2008 1:43am
Tony Tutins (mail):

Where are the calls for boycotts of Saudi Arabia or Sudan, whose human rights records are infinitely worse than that of Israel?

We expect more from Israel than we do Sudan, because Israel holds itself to a higher standard, by proudly proclaiming to be the only democracy in the Middle East, and America's best friend and strongest ally. Does Israel really want to be judged by the military dictatorship standard? Regarding boycotts: Note that the U.S. already sanctions Sudanese businesses and individuals.
1.12.2008 11:00am
Hoosier:
Gary Anderson-- "Just a thought. I don't want my tax money being used to kill civilians in Israel, anymore than I condone it being used to kill hundreds of thousands in Iraq."

Move.
1.12.2008 2:01pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"I didn't claim they did. Here's what I did: I proved Hinderaker was silent when personally confronted with Holocaust denial on his own forum."

Indeed you did. I was also silent in failing to respond to that Holocaust denial. Who else will stand in shame with Hindraker and me?

It's not the Christian way, it's not working, and many resent having to pay the bills for it.

Christians have shown us their way for two thousand years, and we can see that it includes just about everything.
1.12.2008 3:09pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
elliot: "I was also silent in failing to respond to that Holocaust denial. Who else will stand in shame with Hindraker and me?"

Nice job with the idiotic sophistry. You're not the manager of the site that hosted (and is still hosting) the offensive material. He is. You weren't present in that thread. He was. You hadn't just written an article throwing stones at politico for allegedly being tolerant of offensive material on their site. He had.

So there are several important differences between you and him. But here's one similarity: you both like making arguments that are embarrassingly fatuous.
1.12.2008 5:50pm
Ralph A. Volpi (mail):
jukeboxgrad:

Jeez this is stupid. Let me ask you this: How many posts denying the Holocaust did this "regular" poster make on the thread, and how many followup posts agreed with him, as against how many anit-Israel and anti-jewish posts are made on the liberal blogs? Humm? Maybe Hinderocker (sp?) just thought that the other posts adequately answered the orginial post so that no follow up was required. And, quite frankly, just reading your posts here make me want to go out and read some David Irving.

I mean, sometimes you just push too hard, ya dig? It does not do you ANY GOOD to trash people who would be your allies for tiny faults so that when you need their help, they can't stand the sight of you.

Oh, ya, in case you are interested, I am one of those guys that believe the Nazi's did the Holocaust, that Israel should have keept ALL of the West Bank after the 1967 war, that the U.N. is the problem not the solution in the Middle East, and uncompromising support for Isreal is the best policy for the United States. So don't go there, OK?
1.13.2008 2:25am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
ralph: "How many posts denying the Holocaust did this 'regular' poster make on the thread"

One would be too many, but the answer is a lot more than one. And it was not just one thread. It was multiple threads. One had this charming title: Jew Watch. And he wasn't the only poster promoting Holocaust denial. Click through and see for yourself. But that's beside the point. My concern is not his behavior. My concern is Hinderaker's behavior.

"how many followup posts agreed with him"

He wasn't the only one. But that's beside the point. My concern is not his behavior, or the behavior of other posters. My concern is Hinderaker's behavior.

"as against how many anit-Israel and anti-jewish posts are made on the liberal blogs?"

I'm still waiting for someone to show a single example of "anti-jewish posts … made on the liberal blogs" where a site administrator was demonstrably present and decided to sit on their hands. There is no excuse for such a thing, and it's pretty disgraceful that you're trying to pretend otherwise.

"Maybe Hinderocker (sp?) just thought that the other posts adequately answered the orginial post so that no follow up was required."

Maybe you've never heard this old expression: silence is consent. If the administrator is present, there is no defense for them sitting on their hands. Period.

Anyway, the rationale you're raising is oddly nowhere to be found when the shoe is on the other foot. The prior day, when Hinderaker was standing in his glass house throwing stones at politico, Hinderaker paid no attention to the fact that someone spoke up to defend Israel within minutes of the original anti-Israel post, at politico. Hinderaker seemed to have no interest whatsoever in applying your logic, that "other posts adequately answered the orginial post so that no follow up was required." On the contrary. Even though there were "other posts [that] adequately answered the orginial post," Hinderaker still sternly insisted that the politico administrators had a responsibility not just to speak up, but to take the thread down. And the speech in the politico thread fell far short of Holocaust denial, if one wants to compare relative levels of offensiveness. So Hinderaker's hypocrisy in this instance is quite spectacular.

The rationale you're raising is also oddly nowhere to be found in this Lanny Davis column, which impressed a poster here.

And the rationale you're raising is even inconsistent with your own comment, where you make reference to "anit-Israel and anti-jewish posts … made on the liberal blogs." It's not just that you haven't shown an example where such posts have been condoned by an administrator. You haven't even shown an example where such posts haven't been "adequately answered [by] other posts." Your double standard is pretty stunning.

"just reading your posts here make me want to go out and read some David Irving"

I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but it seems to be consistent with your overall stance of suggesting that a little Holocaust denial here and there is no big deal.

"I mean, sometimes you just push too hard, ya dig? It does not do you ANY GOOD to trash people who would be your allies for tiny faults so that when you need their help, they can't stand the sight of you."

I'm not sure how to decode that, but it sounds like this: "you Jews better not get too uppity." Is that what you're trying to say? With friends like you, Jews don't need enemies.

By the way, Jews are not the only people who are offended by Holocaust denial. But this unwarranted assumption on your part is fairly revealing.

"I am one of those guys that believe the Nazi's did the Holocaust"

Wow. Really? I guess that means you think you deserve a cookie.
1.13.2008 9:14am
Gary Anderson (mail):
Gary Anderson-- "Just a thought. I don't want my tax money being used to kill civilians in Israel, anymore than I condone it being used to kill hundreds of thousands in Iraq."

Move.


Eh. I think I'll just wait it out...
1.14.2008 5:41am
Yankev (mail):

Just a thought. I don't want my tax money being used to kill civilians in Israel, anymore than I condone it being used to kill hundreds of thousands in Iraq.

Given the correlation between aid to the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian attacks on civilians within Israel -- when the aid goes up, so does the number of attacks -- I am glad to see Gary support the cutting off of all US aid to the PA.
1.14.2008 4:24pm