-2

This answer contains the following conspiracy theory:

Second, I highly doubt Israel trusts the UN given the UN's constant bias against Israel

The user has provided no evidence that UN (as a whole) is constantly (not just in a few cases) biased against Israel. This is unsurprising as no such evidence exists and I think it is clear to rational observers that this is an example of disinformation.

As such I edited it out of the answer. Sadly my edit was reverted and a mod locked the question (though oddly allowing the disinformation to stay). So my question is, given that a mod has allowed the conspiracy theory and disinformation to stay, is this a website wide policy? Are we allowing wild claims, with no attempt even to provide evidence, to remain now?

14
  • It's the principal of the thing. If this site isn't to be a total wasteland, we have to some standards about what can be posted.
    – Ben Cohen
    Feb 23 at 21:15
  • As the moderator says, you shouldn't be making an edit and rolling back to that edit if your edit gets reverted. In cases like this you comment on the question with your objection and cast downvotes as needed. The answer wasn't locked because you edited it but because you rolled back to that edit after it had been reverted.
    – Joe W
    Feb 23 at 21:47
  • @JoeW, fair enough, but that doesn't address the disinformation in the answer. Why did the mod allow that to pass? Are we permitting conspiracy theories now?
    – Ben Cohen
    Feb 23 at 22:07
  • You need to explain why you think that the content is problematic in the comments. Given all the times that the UN has done things that goes against Israel it isn’t exactly surprising that some would suggest that Israel doesn’t trust the UN.
    – Joe W
    Feb 23 at 22:39
  • I think it is pretty obvious why making such a sweeping generalisation without evidence is problematic. If it isn't to you, then there is not much to be discussed I am afraid.
    – Ben Cohen
    Feb 23 at 22:50
  • The lack of supporting evidence isn’t a good reason to moderate the post. Just comment on the answer with your concerns, cast a vote, and move on.
    – Joe W
    Feb 23 at 22:54
  • 2
    So you're essentially saying "just accept people posting conspiracy theories". Somehow I don't think you would be so passive if the conspiracy theory went against your favoured stance.
    – Ben Cohen
    Feb 23 at 23:02
  • I am saying that it isn’t exactly a conspiracy theory that the UN has done plenty of things that go against Israel in the past.
    – Joe W
    Feb 23 at 23:14
  • 3
    To the contrary, they have been biased in favour of Israel.
    – Ben Cohen
    Feb 23 at 23:16
  • Not everyone would agree with you on that including Israel. Here is an article from Israel talking about the number of times the UN has condemned Israel versus other countries. timesofisrael.com/…
    – Joe W
    Feb 23 at 23:22
  • 2
    An Israeli source claiming that UN is biased against Israel. What unbiased references you find!
    – Ben Cohen
    Feb 23 at 23:24
  • A source that shows the UN does condemn Israel and isn’t biased in favor of Israel as you claim.
    – Joe W
    Feb 24 at 0:03
  • 1
    @JoeW, you're commiting the fallacy of assuming what you're trying to prove. That UN condemns Israel merely shows that Israel is involved in egregious human rights abuses. Given the seriousness of the situation, the UN doesn't go far enough. Witness how swiftly the ICC moved against Putin, but has been dragging its feet over Yoav Gallant an other Israeli ministers.
    – Ben Cohen
    Feb 25 at 13:52
  • The fallacy of showing that the UN has issued plenty of rulings and condemnations against Israel and that they would have reasons to not like/trust the UN? I am not suggesting that it was a good answer, just that it isn't something that moderators need to take action on when you have tools to show issues with it.
    – Joe W
    Feb 25 at 16:08

4 Answers 4

5

Fuggetaboutit. If one's idea of Israel is Likud-like (incorporating the West Bank etc.) then self-evidently the UN is "constantly" against (such a conception of) Israel. As Bibi more recently phrased that, he won't allow "international dictates". (And yes, you'll soon get a Likud fan posting here how many times the UN condemned Israel on this-or-that [there's the fabled "UN Watch" which keeps precise track of this], but the UN failure to condemn Hamas by name.)

The answer clearly wears its POV on its sleeve, including language ("flies to rotting meat") that to me is somehow evocative of the "human animals" epithet uttered by some minister. To say nothing of the proven-wrong prediction(s) expressed in that language, despite the contrary decisions of Bibi later--including his more recent plan to close Rafah and allow crossing only from Israel.

The quality, predictions, and score of that answer (some negative, but net positive) somewhat remind me of answers here in early 2022 predicting that Russia won't be invading Ukraine. Sometimes the illuminate leader surprises his followers/fans... so much.

4
  • 1
    I don't think that letting conspiracy theories be posted without consequences is the right way to go about things.
    – Ben Cohen
    Feb 23 at 22:10
  • @BenCohen: see my first para. It's not just a theory but an actual opposition block to a certain conception of Israel. Which given the general tone of the answer can be inferred as to what is assumed. What you complain about is like saying there's a conspiracy theory that the UN opposes Russia's invasion of Ukraine, instead of an actual oppo block to that. Yeah, Russians aren't yet claiming left and right that the UN has "constant bias" against them, but give the current status quo [e.g. of Crimea] 50 years, and we'll see how their discourse changes. Feb 23 at 22:22
  • 1
    @BenCohen: and a recent answer of yours here could be construed as a "conspiracy theory" too, since--you know--it relies on your interpretation of some polls that didn't ask that direct question. Broad generalizations aren't always actionable as CoC violations. Feb 24 at 1:11
  • @BenCohen: and I'm not just singling you out here. E.g. this highly upvoted answer contain IMO a rather obvious misinterpretation of [a] fact. But I'm not going to report it as a violation. Feb 24 at 1:17
2

If you don't like the answer, downvote it, flag it or make suggestions for edits. Don't go around putting words in the OP's mouth by substantially changing it. Whether that answer is wrong or not, that argument is a substantial part of it.

Additionally, while the UN-always-against-Israel is a somewhat long in the tooth and glib argument, it certainly is one that influences Israeli thinking quite a lot and therefore would influence Israeli policy - something the Q was asking about - whether true or not.

1

I find it a bit surprising that the answer wasn't deleted given that it is pure speculation. The question asks for an "official explanation", but the answer is just conjecture. One of my answers was moderator-deleted for much less serious issues than that.

4
  • The answer does not attribute to Israel a sinister intent. It does attribute it to the UN, but Israel is the subject of the answer. And if Israel views UN as frequently unfair to it, then the explanation makes sense. If you speculate and attribute a sinister intent to the subject of an answer, then it's your opinion that someone is doing something sinister. If the sinister actions are attributed to the object of the answer (presumably because the subject shares that view), then it describes someone else's opinion and it may be relevant.
    – wrod
    Feb 27 at 3:20
  • 1
    @wrod, the major issue with the answer is that it doesn't say "Israel claims that the UN is constantly biased ..." but it states it as a fact without providing any supporting evidence.
    – Ben Cohen
    Feb 27 at 9:12
  • 1
    Had the answer said "Israel claims ..." I too would have considered it unproblematic as that is what Israel claims.
    – Ben Cohen
    Feb 27 at 9:13
  • @BenCohen well, you could have tried editing that in then. Something like "Israel views UN as frequently taking biased positions against it." That would probably be less welcome of an edit because it would diminish the fervor of the author's statement, but it would still not remove their intent entirely. So a moderator might have viewed it more favorably.
    – wrod
    Feb 27 at 21:45
-3

I am not sure if this is a language barrier issue, but "constant" doesn't mean the same thing in colloquial English as it does in the literary (dictionary sense). "Frequent" or "very frequent" would be synonymous to how "constant" is used colloquially.

Had you changed the answer minimally, and preserved the author's intent, by changing "constant" to "frequent," I suspect their rejection of your edits would not be so adamant.

You must log in to answer this question.

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