Quaker Group Cancels Ad After NYT Rejects ‘Genocide’ Label for Gaza

NEW YORK—A prominent Quaker advocacy organization has canceled a planned advertisement campaign in The New York Times, alleging the newspaper refused to print language describing the crisis in Gaza as “genocide.” The group, which had hoped to run a full-page ad calling for a ceasefire and heightened humanitarian intervention, says it withdrew its submission after Times representatives insisted on changes to key wording in the text.

“Our goal was to highlight the severity of the humanitarian situation,” a spokesperson for the group said in a statement. “We believe that the events unfolding in Gaza meet the legal and moral definition of genocide, and the public has a right to hear voices naming it as such.”

According to the group, which is part of the broader Quaker tradition known for pacifism and social justice advocacy, the ad was slated to run this week and had been approved in principle—pending certain editorial reviews. Those discussions reportedly hit a stalemate when the newspaper’s advertising department asked for changes that removed or softened the term “genocide.”

Tensions Over Terminology
Critics of the Times’ editorial stance argue that the paper’s refusal to use “genocide” in its coverage downplays the scale of the crisis and silences voices from advocacy groups, faith-based organizations, and legal experts who say the violence meets key criteria set out in international conventions. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for The New York Times declined to comment on the specifics of the ad negotiations, citing internal policy on editorial standards and advertising guidelines.

In public statements, Times editors have previously noted the caution with which the paper uses terms like “genocide,” emphasizing that editorial discretion relies on multiple layers of corroboration and the recognized legal definitions established under the U.N. Genocide Convention. The spokesperson added that the Times remains committed to providing “comprehensive, fair, and fact-based reporting” on the Gaza conflict.

Quaker Principles at the Forefront
Quaker communities—often referred to collectively as the Religious Society of Friends—have a long history of anti-war activism and humanitarian engagement. Many Quaker organizations champion causes such as refugees’ rights, interfaith dialogue, and nonviolent conflict resolution. The group that canceled its ad has historically run similar messages in major newspapers during times of escalating global violence, often calling for immediate ceasefires and diplomatic negotiations.

“For Quakers, speaking truth to power is a moral imperative,” explained a longtime member who asked not to be named. “If a publication of record is reluctant to call out what we see as genocide, then we, in good conscience, cannot remain silent or dilute our language to appease them.”

Wider Debate on Genocide Label
The dispute between the Quaker organization and The New York Times reflects a broader tension in news coverage of international conflicts. Whether or not the term “genocide” applies can hinge on complex legal and moral factors—factors that activists say are sometimes overlooked in public debate. Opponents of using the term argue that it risks oversimplifying conflict dynamics, while proponents believe that forceful language can galvanize global attention and pressure for intervention.

In recent weeks, multiple human rights organizations have published findings suggesting that war crimes or ethnic cleansing may be occurring in Gaza. Some groups have gone further, asserting that the scale of displacement and civilian casualties warrant the “genocide” label. International bodies, including the United Nations, have not issued a formal declaration to that effect; however, various member states and civil society organizations continue to call for independent investigations.

Next Steps and Continuing Advocacy
Despite the canceled ad, the Quaker group insists its efforts to raise awareness are far from over. Several members confirm that they are exploring other avenues, including social media campaigns, partnerships with other faith-based groups, and possibly buying space in other newspapers more open to their language choices.

“What matters most to us,” said the spokesperson, “is that the message reaches the public intact. If we can’t do that through The New York Times, we’ll find other ways to speak out.”

As global attention remains sharply focused on the ongoing violence in Gaza, this flashpoint between a Quaker organization and a major newspaper signals how even the language of conflict can become fiercely contested ground. Whether or not the paper’s editorial line changes remains to be seen. Meanwhile, for the Quaker advocates, the decision to withdraw their ad underscores what they view as a moral line in the sand—one that they say cannot be crossed for the sake of media access or softer messaging.