11 thoughts on “AJC Ambushes Ms Magazine – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Great work tearing up the AJC’s faux-innocent outrage. When I see how the PR strategy of a number of these propaganda groups has shifted away from re-framing the issues that make people “hostile” towards Israel in the first place (for example, the occupation and its apartheid implications) in their favor, to techniques that totally ignore those issues in favor of these crass marketing campaigns, I can see all the more easily how weak their moral position has become. It seems that the Ministry of Tourism has taken over the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and when it comes to tourism, there’s only one way to deal with problems: pretend they’re not there.

  2. Richard, did you see the column by R. Cohen in the WP a couple of days ago in which he argues, slightly obliquely, that Obama must answer for a publication put out by his church that praises Farrakhan, emphasizing the anti-Semitic nature of Farrakhan’s creepiness? Thoughts?

  3. Here’s my opinion, Clare –

    Feminism should reject the culture of status/celebrity, which is what this ad is all about. More generally, feminism should stand up for society’s have-nots, not its haves. Ms. was right to reject the ad.

  4. Ms. Magazine is a progressive, feminist publication. Why in heaven’s name should they have published that ad? How could they have handled it “better?”

    Progressives have to stand up to this bullying and call it what it is.

    Kudos to Ms. for not taking their money.

  5. How could they have handled it “better?”

    Their explanation sounded lame. How does a claim that the ad promotes one Israeli political party rate on a scale of 1 to 10 as credible? Maybe 1 or 2 if you’re lucky. Ms needed to tell the truth about what the ad meant and why they didn’t run it. They didn’t. They attempted to fudge the issues.

    I’m not saying this to attack Ms as I think they were deliberately placed in a no-win situation. Very few of us might’ve navigated this any better than they did.

  6. The Palestinians could put up and add featuring Hanan Ashwari but it might break mirrors and frighten small children.

    All I can say is I’m glad we don’t have to see your mug in an ad. I know it’d frighten MY children.

  7. “Ms” should have given the real reason to deny publication: these women’s responsibility for the starvation of Gaza and for an untold number of deaths of Gazans in medical need.
    See Amnesty International’s Press Release on Israeli authorities refusal to allow critically ill Palestinians to leave the Gaza Strip for urgent medical treatment which is not available in Gaza:

    Dorit Beinisch – the starlet of this ad – should be exposed for what she is: an accomplice to war crimes. It was her court that authorized the crimes being commtted in Gaza.

    But you are right, Richard, that from a PR point of view – Ms completely goofed this up. You can safely assume that the brouhaha over the ad has given the ad a huge publicity boost that it never would have gotten without the scandal.
    Come on, who really cares what ads are published in “Ms”? Who bothers to look at them?

  8. Readers of Ms. look at the ads and I certainly hope they care!

    It’s a matter of principle. Why in the world should a progressive publication be bullied into running an ad that promotes right-wing politcians, and by extension, their apartheid policies?

    I wish the publishers had sent out their own press release, calling this organization on to the carpet for this kind of racial extortion.

  9. The did send out their own press release. It’s available on the Ms website. It’s just not that convincing & doesn’t present the issues in a way that is clear & persuasive–at least not to me. And I’m on their side on this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link