3

I hope it's OK to ask on my own behalf here (what else with a narrower scope could I do to obtain a review of a moderator action?).

Philipp apparently cleaned up in the highly active question What is Hamas' strategy in attacking Israel?. Two answers were deleted as "not an answer", among them mine (https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/81632/7226), a fairly short, to-the-point post which at its core stated "The future is a future of an eternal conflict which will never be solved. After this realization, Hamas' strategy is clear: To inflict as much harm on the enemy as they can."

I think this is a fairly specific answer to the question with strong explanatory value, and would therefore like to have his deletion reviewed.

@Philipp This meta question does not get a lot of attention, so let me ask you directly: What motivated your deletion which runs contrary to the reception the question got? It was tied for the second-best voted answer, and the first comment literally was "Sadly, this is probably the most simple yet accurate answer", which in turn was upvoted, indicating that the sentiment was shared. Could it be made viable by finding references? (That is inherently problematic because I think every public statement is only lip service, but it is possible that I find some expert coming to the same conclusion.)

2 Answers 2

7

I deleted your answer, as well as I deleted or abbreviated a lot of other answers on this question.

As you all should know by now, this website is not a place to advance opinions or debate, but rather for exchanging objective information about the policies, processes, and personalities that comprise the political arena.

I know that a conflict as polarizing as the Israel/Palestine conflict escalating again creates a lot of emotions in many members of our community and the desire to makes sure nobody has the "wrong" views or opinions on this conflict. But if we want Politics Stack Exchange to remain a useful source of information and not another partisan shouting match, then we need to restrain ourselves from editorializing. We answer questions. We do not push our personal opinions on people.

So just as we moderators did when Russia invaded Ukraine, we moderators make sure that any answers to questions about a hot conflict remain factual, to the point and free of editorializing and propaganda. If you want to convince people of your views how the conflict can or can't be resolved, please go to Reddit.

To get back to the specific answer that prompted this meta-question: Yes, the core is quoted correctly, but that's just a single sentence. The rest of the answer is just the authors personal opinion on the conflict and how they consider it unresolvable. Writing an opinion piece and then putting a one-sentence answer to the actual question somewhere in it doesn't make it less of an opinion piece. Yes, even when you make it bold and put it into an own paragraph. I could have deleted everything except the one sentence that actually answers the question. But one sentence answers don't fulfill the quality standards of this community. So I deleted it completely.

8
  • 6
    Non sequor. The realization that the conflict cannot be solved is fundamental to the insight of how the actors behave. If I cannot utter the former I cannot explain the latter. I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything anymore than anybody else who writes an answer. Oct 10, 2023 at 8:08
  • I have edited my answer and quoted sources for the impossibility of a two-state and one-state solution, showing that it is not just a personal opinion. Oct 10, 2023 at 8:46
  • 1
    By the way, the single sentence is a fair summary of the entire post. There is not more of a personal opinion in the entirety of the answer than in that sentence. "How they consider it unresolvable" has been referenced now; I thought that was not necessary, but since you insist, I used the first three google hits, basically. Oct 10, 2023 at 12:26
  • 1
    I note that the very first comment to my previously deleted answer (which received a few upvotes) which said something along the lines of "this is probably, sadly, the short and correct answer" was deleted. Did the comment author change their mind? Oct 11, 2023 at 15:41
  • 1
    @Peter-ReinstateMonica I deleted the comment because all it did was express agreement with the post. That's what the voting system is for. See also Privileges: comment everywhere
    – JJJ Mod
    Oct 16, 2023 at 1:18
  • "As you all should know by now, this website is not a place to advance opinions or debate, but rather for exchanging objective information about the policies, processes, and personalities that comprise the political arena." - Yet, every time I come here, I can barely find any evidence of the latter, while the former is in abundance. And that's after the mods have gone through and cleaned things up. To say nothing of the offensive, mocking, belittling content they refuse to remove. Oct 16, 2023 at 11:55
  • @KarlKnechtel Well, in politics even more than in other areas, the interpretation of what we see depends on the point of view and particular interests of the spectator. We make sense of events based on this understanding. Politics is rife with speech that is manipulative and untruthful or simply secret. Official actors, processes and policies can often simply be looked up on Wikipedia. But the official policies are often bland, and, as part of political speech, untruthful. The "true" motives are always conjecture, backed by circumstantial evidence and Occam's razor. Oct 24, 2023 at 12:18
  • @KarlKnechtel The "no debate" stipulation is particularly funny. After all, the very definition of politics is representation and reconciliation of interests through an exchange of opinions. There is no universal truth in politics, even less than in other areas. Of course: Any interesting topic will initiate debate, through comments or posts. That is in the nature of the thing and not to be fought or lamented, provided it stays civil and factual. Humans learn through dialogue. But, yes: Not all opinions are created equal. They should not contradict facts and have explanatory value. Oct 24, 2023 at 12:30
6

After the edit I think the post sufficiently shows that the 'no end in sight' view your answer is based on is shared widely enough to be used as a premise.

I will undelete it because it's no longer an opinion-based answer.

Still, the answer could be improved by addressing Hamas' view on the conflict.

Right now you use outside experts to argue that a solution to the conflict is out of reach. It would be better if you could show that Hamas also shares this view. You are trying to show why Hamas takes certain actions taking that view point for granted, but that argument only holds if Hamas shares the view point.

4
  • I must ask: That was not obvious before? I basically quoted the relevant Wikipedia articles and one of the first 5 google hits.-- Regarding Hamas quotes: In my opinion (sic) the parties to the conflict are not acting truthfully, so official statements have only limited validity, and quoting them contributes nothing, or even adds disinformation.-- But let's not forget: Thanks for the help. As always, I generally appreciate the effort to manage this particular site, except when it hits me ;-). Oct 11, 2023 at 14:44
  • @Peter-ReinstateMonica I'm probably a bit biased because I tend to agree with your assessment. It's probably the combination of a bold claim (the conflict is doomed to go on with no end in sight) and no further references that makes it seem like editorializing. As for official statements, I agree those need to be taken with a grain of salt though that argument isn't unique to this conflict.
    – JJJ Mod
    Oct 11, 2023 at 15:32
  • @Peter-ReinstateMonica: Hamas doesn't publicly accept a/the two-state solution. So, it would have been simpler to assert this narrower version of the premise as the most relevant, rather than appeal to some "expert consensus" on whether the solution is "viable". The "expert consensus" was also pretty weak, some 52% agreed. Not that that matters to Hamas. Oct 12, 2023 at 15:20
  • @Fizz Well, if there is an alternative, then the question "but why" is still valid. Oct 12, 2023 at 15:23

You must log in to answer this question.

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