-6

My question on this subject has been closed down because its suggested that my question is promoting a specific political cause.

Given that people in politics are politically motivated, for example they are pro-Palestine or pro-Israel in their views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, this seems a strange reason to shut out a question.

Moreover, the question was written in an objective manner without being rude or abusive. Furthermore, I've found out since that this option was discussed during WWII by Lord Moynes with Jewish leaders, however they refused it as they were interested in Palestine then as a homeland. The moderator, JJJ, asked if thos question could be framed as a contemporary debate, she would reopen the question. There is a contemporary discussion of Iarael as a settler-colonial state. Had the Jewish leadership chosen a part of East Prussia as a homeland, then this choice could not be framed as Settler-Colonialism. By choosing Palestine, which they intended to so since the earlier Balfour Declaration, it can be framed as Settlwr-Colonialism.

Hence, my question, why was this question closed down?

15
  • I'll just note here that the Q, which was then asked in almost verbatim form/copy on history SE, was also closed and deleted there, by a mod. history.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4314/… Also, it seems the OP was suspended from H.SE in the aftermath.
    – Fizz
    Oct 1 at 5:53
  • @Fizz: I originally asked this question in politics.SE and a mod closed and on prompting, suggested that I ask it at History.SE - but I said it ought to remain in politics as the Israeli-Palestine conflict was still a live issue. The mod replied, only if can be shown to relate a current concern. In the end, I did move it to History.SE. This was heavily down-voted even though there was a similar question that had 16 votes and showed my question was fine, as is. I was suspended at History.SE not for this question, but ... Oct 1 at 9:05
  • @Fizz: ... for my answer to a separate question where a mod requested I add referances and I asked the mod what referances/qualifications did they have for holding the position of a mod on a site devoted to the academic study of history. The mods there took this to be a 'personal attack' whereas I see that as a fair question. If I asked the prime-minister of England what qualifications he had for being prime-minoster, he would say, the people elected him to that position. If I asked the editors of a respected journal why they ... Oct 1 at 9:09
  • @Fizz: ... held the position they did, they would point to their doctorates at the university of so-and-so. Oct 1 at 9:10
  • Just so it's said, I doubt Jews would have accepted a 'new' homeland in Europe. Jews have a strong historical and religious attachment to their 'promised land' in Canaan, the ZIonist movement to return there began more than a half-century before WWII, and post-Holocaust most Jews wanted nothing whatsoever to do with Germany or Europe. Jews didn't want just any old homeland, and they surely didn't want a chunk of German soil as a homeland (because that would breed resentments). They wanted their homeland. Oct 1 at 22:15
  • @Ted Wrigley: They also have a long hostorical link to Europe. This is why they keep saying they are the only democracy in the Middle East. For democracy, read Eiropean state. This strong historical connection is which Zionism didn't have much purchase on the imagination of European Jewry. They didn't fancy living in Australia, Uganda, Tasmania or Eastern Russia. The option of Palestine was not discussed then since it was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. It's only because Palestine was possible under the aegis of the British Empire after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWII that ... Oct 1 at 22:44
  • @Ted Wrigley: ... that Eastern Prussia was ruled out as an option. How they would have handled this option in early Zionism at the turn of the 20th C is another interesting question. Oct 1 at 22:46
  • @MoziburUllah: You seem to have missed the point, or at least drastically underestimated the power of religion. Canaan isn't a mere geopolitical concept for Jews; it's part of the covenant they made with God. If your dad died and left you a house, you'd be a bit miffed if someone said: "Meh, somebody else is living there, so why don't we find a nice place for you elsewhere." Right? SO don't pretend you don't understand. Oct 3 at 5:56
  • @Ted Wrigley: Hmm, Reform Judaism has roughly 2 million members and they believe in a continual and evolving revelation. Moreover, you appear to forget that it was the Romans that exiled the Jews from Palestine almost two millenia ago. If my dad left me some land and then I was exiled from it for two thousand years then I don't think I can just go back and just claim it. Maybe within twenty, fifty or a hundred years. Not two thousand. Other people lived on that land - like the Palestinians, they too have a relationship with that land. Just like the native American Indians before the ... Oct 3 at 14:06
  • @Ted Wrigley: ... genocidal conquest of the Americas by Europe. Also the Maori of New Zealand, and the Aborigines of Australia ... Oct 3 at 14:07
  • @MoziburUllah: Ah, OK.... Now I see that you want to miss the point. Enough said, then, and apologies for trying to clarify. Oct 3 at 14:22
  • @Ted Wrigley: I did not miss your point. I understood it completely. I have heard it before and many times. Many peoples had gods tied to the land, for example, the river Ganges in India is holy to the Hindu's being named after the goddess Ganga. This notion is not exclusive to the Jews. Oct 3 at 14:45
  • @MoziburUllah: I can see that you understand my point, but I can also see that you steadfastly refuse to engage it, consistently deflecting back to your preferred line of argument with questionable analogical reasoning. No offense intended: I'm highlighting this because it is the advocate-like behavior that got your question closed, and will continue to get your questions closed in the future unless you decide to address it. This isn't moot court. Oct 3 at 14:57
  • @Ted Wrigley: Analogical reasoning is still reasoning. The Jews, although a people, are not the only people in the world. I am referring to other people besides the Jews and the Palestinians to place your reasoning in context. You are refusing to engage with that reasoning. Are you suggesting that by understanding that one ought to also agree? This makes no sense. I understand your point but you are advocating solely the establishment point of view - there are other perspectives that you are refusing to acknowledge. Are you stating that thos site only acknowledges the establishment ... Oct 3 at 15:29
  • @Ted Wrigley: ... point of view on Israel? If so, that would be reprehensible on a site devoted to politics. Oct 3 at 15:30
11

I responded to your question after it received a rude or abusive flag. I don't think it is rude per se, but I found two other issues:

  • The question is about history, not politics.

  • In the comments you seem to be defending the position that a Jewish state should have been established in Germany after WW2 (you left 11 comments). That's political activism, which is off-topic on our site.

An example of such political activism is this comment of yours:

Historically speaking they are short time periods. Nevertheless, what you are suggesting is ignoring the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the historic guilt of Germany for the Holocaust. In ordinary criminal law, we do not ask a third party to pay for the responsibility of one of the protaganists. Yet here, it seems that we have. This seems unconscionable to me - if not to you.

See also Help! I am being oppressed! Why do people keep downvoting my opinions?.

And as I wrote in a comment when closing your question:

I closed the question because it seems you're just pushing your view. Aside from that, I don't think the question is on topic for Politics. It's a history question and the question about the decision then has no relation to the present other than consequences of that decision. Asking why the decision was made the way it was at the time is a historical question.


Given that people in politics are politically motivated, for example they are pro-Palestine or pro-Israel in their views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, this seems a strange reason to shut out a question.

Perhaps it would have made a good political question at the time. The political decision was made then and it is not under consideration anymore. That makes it history.

To bring up the validity of the state of Israel in a political context is suspect. A US State Department page on antisemitism gives some examples, which includes:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

4
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – JJJ Mod
    Sep 25 at 17:49
  • It's not 'alternative history', this option was discussed by Lord Moynes with Jewish Leaders during the second world war. Sep 30 at 5:47
  • @MoziburUllah when was the second world war again? That's history right?
    – JJJ Mod
    Sep 30 at 6:22
  • Without disputing the closure (which I think was correct on the activism issue), I don't think this 'history' argument is going anywhere. Politics and political history are deeply intertwined (the first being a culmination of the second). There are limits, of course, but you can't really justify this strong stance. Oct 1 at 15:00

You must log in to answer this question.

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