This is no misunderstanding. Your publication of the rejected Ms. ad and the obsequious apology delivered by Katha Pollitt proves that The Nation will wet its pants when powerful right-wing Jewish interests come a callin'.
I was not aware that the ad was made for Ms. when I first saw it. My first reaction was that The American Jewish Congress must think Nation readers are pretty stupid if they feel that this type of nonsensical promotion is going to help their cause. When I saw the BP ad on the verso, I thought that ads like this tell your readers, "We may criticize big oil and Israel but in the end we will take their money and lick their asses." It takes a little of the edge away from the articles.
Briefly, I would like to point out just a few highlights of your magazine's apologia: "The nation pretty much accepts any advertisement, that comes its way." The qualifier "pretty much" makes this statement mean "we take what we do not feel is offensive." Bubby, would you have taken an ad from the white government of South Africa, from the David Duke campaign or from the current government of the Congo? You apparently are not taking the articles by Eyal Press too seriously. Let me spell it out for you: this AJC ad is offensive.
"I read the ad as simply implying that there are some pretty powerful women in Israel, which is true." No comment needed.
"Add anti-Semitism and stir!" Listen, you m'too-rah-phim, for the hundredth time, criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism. Are you aware of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the actions of the US and Israel in violation of international law, there?
"We get tsoris from readers..." What is the function of using this Yiddish word which is not generally understood by non-Jewish readers? Is it to say, you non-Jews should keep a distance from this business?
You will need twenty-five Eyal Press articles and fifteen "our fathers" to begin to atone for this mistake.
If you want to use Jewish/Hebrew words, I will give you two: atem d'foo-kim (אתם דפוקים).
Mar 13 2008 - 11:48am