2

I asked this question related to the rules of engagement in the Israel-Hamas war.

The source of the question is a claim by an Israeli NGO named "Breaking the Silence". In the question I explained briefly what this NGO is, since I assumed people might not know it. At first I used my own words but this was rejected and deleted in a revision, so instead I quoted the definition that the NGO gives of themselves on their website with a link:

Breaking the Silence is an Israeli NGO "of veteran soldiers who have served in the Israeli military".

The same user deleted this again, I suspect because they do not agree with the politics of this particular NGO.

Is it wrong to explain who the source of the claim is? Or is there any other reason according to the site policy why this part should be removed?

1
  • 1
    I would flag your question for moderator review as users are not supposed to engage in edit wars with the post author and should instead flag moderators to review content that they find objectionable
    – Joe W
    Commented Jan 8 at 13:21

2 Answers 2

4

I think it is appropriate to have some context for who Breaking the Silence is.

The context appeared to be a self-description, which is typically the most appropriate way to describe an organisation.

I do not understand the nature of the objection to the self-characterisation.

I have edited the question again in an attempt to find a compromise that will satisfy everyone. I don't believe it is a false compromise, but I will have to wait for feedback to find out.

-2

I'm the user who deleted the description, and it would be appropriate to tag me here, or in a comment to ask why.

The reason is that this organization is a political NGO with a clear pro Palestinian agenda. Describing it as an organization formed by "IDF veterans for IDF veterans" makes it sound more like the Israeli equivalent of the American legion than what it really is.

Because of the conscription model almost everything in Israel was formed by IDF veterans. Adam Neumann was an officer in the Israeli Navy, but describing WeWork as a company created by an IDF veteran gives the wrong impression about what it is. Especially when presenting it to people who are unfamiliar with the subject.

If presented with a description, a description that puts forward their political goal should be the description rather than the past jobs of their founders.

15
  • 3
    Comparing them to WeWork seems extremely dishonest as an analogy. If WeWork specifically rented spaces to IDF veterans, it would make sense to mention IDF veterans when explaining what WeWork is. Breaking the silence is a group specifically designed for the members to be IDF veterans. It seems super dishonest to imply that's on the same level as a company just started by an IDF veteran.
    – JMac
    Commented Jan 8 at 18:05
  • That's the point, that is why we don't portray WeWork as an IDF veteran led company. BtS are not really providing any services or anything else to IDF veterans. They were formed by IDF veterans, but their main function is not really different than B'tzelem, Adalah and other Israeli Pro Palestinian political NGOs, the difference is just the method. Perhaps a more appropriate example would be the American "Oath keepers" which were founded by US Army veterans with veterans as members, and are also a political advocacy group. No one would describe them as a group by veterans for veterans.
    – SIMEL
    Commented Jan 8 at 18:55
  • 3
    But Wikipedia, the best we might get for a "neutral" source, also describes them as "an Israeli non-governmental organization (NGO) established in 2004 by veterans of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)", all in the opening line. Since this is a question about the policies of the IDF, and you don't seem to think the line itself is false, how would that not be relevant? Why not add more information from a different source instead of removing all the context? (Most people won't know about the NGO at all.)
    – Laurel
    Commented Jan 8 at 21:02
  • 4
    @SIMEL I would say a US group founded by veterans whose membership is for veterans is accurately described as a group "by veterans, for veterans". It doesnt really matter if I agree with the group.
    – JMac
    Commented Jan 8 at 21:16
  • @JMac, they are a group founded by Veterans, but again, WeWork is also a company founded by a Veteran. They are do not have a "membership" of veterans, they supposedly collect testimonies from veterans, not induct them into their own ranks in any way, they don't advocate for veterans nor do anything for veterans. They were formed by veterans, but they do not act for veterans. They are at most "By veterans, for Palestinians" and more accurately "But Israelis for Palestinians".
    – SIMEL
    Commented Jan 8 at 21:26
  • @Laurel, because it would make the main question into a discussion about the NGO, a political advocacy group shouldn't be presented as a veterans club, as "by veterans for veterans" suggests.
    – SIMEL
    Commented Jan 8 at 21:28
  • Last I checked WeWork is not a company designed only for IDF veterans while Breaking the Silence is an organization designed by IDF veterans for IDF veterans.
    – Joe W
    Commented Jan 8 at 21:30
  • @JoeW, WeWork was designed by an IDF Veteran, just as almost anything by Israelies. If your computer uses an Intel processor it was probably designed by IDF veterans as well, I personally know some of them. BtS is not designed for IDF veterans, it's a political action group using supposedly testimonies from IDF soldiers to advance the Palestinian cause. Adalah is not a just an organization by Lawyers for Lawyers, even though they are an organization formed by lawyers for lawyers.
    – SIMEL
    Commented Jan 8 at 21:44
  • 2
    Yes, we all understand as you have said that multiple times. However WeWork is an international corporation that is designed for coworking spaces for many possible industries and outside of the founder has nothing to do with IDF veterans. Unless you can show evidence that WeWork was created for the sole purpose of IDF veterans who founded it isn't relevant at all.
    – Joe W
    Commented Jan 8 at 21:47
  • @JoeW, And BtS is a political advocacy group that is promoting the Palestinian political cause. They were not founded for nor currently have any purpose related to IDF veterans. You say for the third time that they are "for IDF veterans" which is simply false, they are for political action on behalf of Palestinian or at best left wing Israeli political causes. They are not now, nor ever been for IDF veterans or soldiers.
    – SIMEL
    Commented Jan 8 at 21:51
  • It should also be noted that from what I have been able to find only a single one of the founders served in the IDF and the other two founders are Americans with no connections to the IDF.
    – Joe W
    Commented Jan 8 at 21:52
  • If you want to make arguments that it isn't connected to IDF veterans focus on that and that alone. Don't try to make comparisons to another company that was founded by two Americans and one Israeli who happened to have served in the IDF.
    – Joe W
    Commented Jan 8 at 21:53
  • @JoeW WeWork is just one example, anything Israeli is highly likely connected to IDF veterans. "By veterans for veterans" has a meaning which is different from "a political advocacy group". Adalah is not a Lawyer's club, the Oath Keepers are not a veteran's club. The American Legion is "by veterans for veterans" BtS is a political advocacy group, with clear political agenda. They should be presented as such to show proper context that's all.
    – SIMEL
    Commented Jan 8 at 21:57
  • 1
    Again, focus on the Breaking the Silence NGO, anything about WeWork or other company in the world is irrelevant not matter how many IDF veterans founded it or are involved with it.
    – Joe W
    Commented Jan 8 at 22:08
  • I'm focusing on BtS. They are not for veterans, and the fact that they were created by veterans is irrelevant. They are a political advocacy group with a clear and known political agenda. They should be presented as such and not as an apolitical veterans affairs group, as the tagline "by veterans for veterans" suggest to an uninformed reader.
    – SIMEL
    Commented Jan 8 at 23:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .