Former B'Tselem employee alleges he was fired for opposing ceasefire call

A former employee of the far-left nonprofit organization B'Tselem has filed an unfair dismissal claim in a Jerusalem labor court, alleging that he was terminated because he disagreed with a call for a unilateral ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.

He admits that, due to a conflict with his colleagues, he changed the password to the B’Tselem account on the social network, effectively blocking their access to it.

According to The Jerusalem Post, Ro’ei Yelin accuses B'Tselem's leadership of firing him for his views. He claims that the events of October 7 had a profound impact on B'Tselem, causing serious shock and crisis among its employees, leading to divisions within the NGO as some employees "attempted to deny or downplay the severity and scale of Hamas' crimes."

On October 9, B'Tselem issued a press release focusing on the atrocities of Hamas terrorists, followed by a statement that "anyone who abandons the basic principle that all people are created in the image and likeness of God loses the image of man."

This sentence was later moved to the end of the press release, which Yelin considered a softening of the condemnation of Hamas.

When B'Tselem proposed publishing a call for a unilateral ceasefire by Israel, Yelin strongly opposed it, arguing that such a move was beyond the professional mandate of human rights defenders and entered the political sphere.

He also believed it would be premature to call for a ceasefire without knowing how southern Israel would be protected. In response, his colleagues accused him of "supporting genocide."

A month later, B'Tselem published a call for a ceasefire, titled "Ceasefire now," which Ro’ei Yelin perceived as directed only at the Israeli government, not at Hamas.

Outraged, he changed the password to the B'Tselem Instagram account, leading to his dismissal after a preliminary hearing.

B'Tselem disputes his claims, stating that the exact reasons for his dismissal were provided to him in a letter in accordance with the law.

The organization refuses to discuss the labor dispute publicly and blames the former employee for sharing information about internal disputes after October 7, causing distress among its employees.