I believe that
- the question in its current state is correctly closed as opinion-based; and
- the question is salvageable, i.e. it can be edited to be non-opinion-based and thus reopened.
- the second bullet point is not inevitable upon edit.
Right now, the question consists of the assertion that X and Y said C, S reacted in no particular manner, then Z also said C upon which S reacted 'hysterically' as stated by N.
The way it is written, the question might refer to a single source document by N which may or may not outline the reasons why S reacted in this way, may or may not include quoted material of people who said 'hysterical', may or may not be asserting that by itself. The point is: we have basically no idea what is being referred to and the question as it currently stands is inviting people to provide their own opinions on the entire process.
According to the comments left here and on the question as well as the details included in the meta-question, it seems you are referring to a specific article by N, a news website. The first and most important step would be to have that source linked in the question to establish a baseline.
The next question is, who is actually saying 'hysterical' (in itself a loaded word). Is it source N? Is N quoting P, Q or R who are using that word? That is a very important factoid.
Only if we know all of the above, we may be able to answer which direct statements or actions caused the label to be applied to S and only by having means of comparison will we be able to discuss it.
I do see the potential of editing and rephrasing the question in a way that makes it not opinion-based but answerable based on sources available to the public.
Editing the question does not guarantee that it will be on-topic afterwards
In this specific case, it depends a lot on how the edits are made and what phrasing ends up in the edited version of the question. It might be that after including links to the relevant articles and quoting the relevant portions the question remains opinion-based, or maybe it becomes one of speculation (i.e. cannot be answered by sources available to the public). It will all depend on the final spin you intend to give your question post-edit.
Addendum lifted from the comment thread:
I object to editing my post when the fault in question is not mine but for moderator Phillip to rectify. Its obvious he is pro-Israel and this is why he closed the question. The kerfuffle over the source, the wording is merely to distract from the key issue. I want an apology from Phillip, and my post reinstated. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing wrong with it. – Your comment
Unfortunately, neither Meta nor the main site is a good place for you to hash out your personal, apparently one-sided problem with one of the diamond moderators. The general gist of all answers here is that your post was not good as is and was rightfully closed as opinion-based. This answer and others have suggested improvements that would make your post a good, on-topic question but you refuse to do so. That this is a majority opinion is reflected by the reopen review stats which were 3–0 in favour of leaving the question closed, stating that the original close reasons were not resolved.
Note that other questions of yours on the topic of Israel did go through a reopen review successfully or were not closed in a close vote review and were subsequently highly upvoted. 1, 2.
Repeating the same claim over and over will not make it true.