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.”
Of course number doesn’t make something right or wrong.
I also find persuasive the list of The country’s in support of South Africa’s complaint to the ICC; a bunch of religious dictatorships and monarchies with their own abysmal human rights records, compared to those who supported Israel, which includes like France, Australia, Japan, and even Canada. Canada is widely known for its cool head in international affairs and it’s consistent stance where human rights are concerned, which might not be as aggressive as some wish, but they manage to maintain relations and push their agenda, which is usually shared by the western world, forward.
Yeah you’re right about the distribution. I found this on Wikipedia on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel Thought you might like it
It looks like Canada is neutral on the matter though. Like you said, they have a cool head. It’s not unwise to be on the fence on a matter that doesn’t relate to you directly.