Why has the U.S. airdrop of supplies to Gaza been criticized as hypocritical?

Why does the US consider the Palestinian Authority ill-fitted to govern the Palestinian state in the post war?

I don't see issues of fitness or relevance with these two questions. They are on-topic and are relevant, though touching on sensitive topics. Other questions on the same issues didn't receive this many downvotes.

Are these downvotes justified? Is there any action to be taken?


3 Answers 3


While I haven't downvoted either question, I'm fairly confident that the downvotes are, in large part, due to a lack of research effort.

  • Regarding the first question, multiple users have expressed their belief in the comments (and I can't help but agree) that the answer is fairly obvious: the US is partially responsible for Gaza needing aid in the first place, by supplying weapons to the IDF and blocking attempts to call for a ceasefire.
  • Regarding the second question, as I noted in a comment earlier, the issues with the Palestinian Authority (including its corrupt nature, poor human rights record, support for convicted terrorists, and unpopularity within Palestine itself) are all fairly well-known and widely-reported.

On a topic as controversial and sensitive as this, I hesitate to say that this is the only reason those questions were downvoted, but they do objectively meet the downvote criteria, and I see no reason to suspect any foul play.

  • 1/ "While I haven't downvoted either question, I'm fairly confident that the downvotes are, in large part, due to a lack of research effort." I see 'lack of research effort' cited a lot on the SE network, but it often seems to vary a lot between sites, or between questions on a site - this recent QA is by a well established user and the answer is ostensibly in the very source cited in the question!
    – bertieb
    Mar 5 at 12:56
  • 2
    2/ It seems capricious to wag fingers at users for 'not enough research effort' when long-established users post questions demonstrating little or no research effort themselves -_-
    – bertieb
    Mar 5 at 12:58
  • 3/3 To be clear, I have nothing against OP of that question, or indeed the question in and of itself, or the author of this answer. I actually think there's often value in getting reasoned, well-explained answers to (some) questions with a 'lack of research'. But a double standard, selectively applied is not consistent and it is not right
    – bertieb
    Mar 5 at 13:01
  • @bertieb That particular question also has a downvote (albeit only the one, likely because it's much newer than the other questions), and the second question linked to here was posted by a user with even more rep. I won't argue that the "lack of research" downvote reason isn't as applied as consistently as it could be, but I don't see any grounds to suggest that there's a "double standard" where low-rep users are downvoted for it more than high-rep users.
    – F1Krazy
    Mar 5 at 13:23
  • 3
    Personally, I'd be more willing to downvote a poorly-researched question from a high-rep user because, quite frankly, they should know better.
    – F1Krazy
    Mar 5 at 13:23
  • 1
    Thanks for taking the time to respond- I hope it's clear it's not your particular answer in this particular context I have issue with! I agree it's not (just) newer users who get hit with this particular double-standard stick; more that it's undesirable that there's a double standard at all: some "lack of research" is okay, some isn't. It seems to me to be an ex post facto (subconsicous?) justification for (various) users+sites DVing or closing questions. Were it me, I'd feel aggrieved to be told "lack of effort, question bad" when prominent examples of "lack of effort, question good" abound
    – bertieb
    Mar 5 at 13:31
  • 2
    I appreciate your objective to be consistent in your latter comment. The example I picked just happened to be one that was recent and visible; the effect in that particular case will no doubt be amplified now that it's HNQ. Other examples are trivial to find- take this QA currently third on "top question, by month" -- the first line of the answer is "The article you linked to already gives at least three explanations:" (and was the first question I checked...)
    – bertieb
    Mar 5 at 13:34
  • @bertieb: 50% these (links in this meta-Q) are Qs by 'long-established users'. And in fact I posted links [in comments under the meta-Q] to a bunch more of the latter. Mar 11 at 1:28
  • @Dolphin613Motorboat 1/ Certainly there are cases where 'lack of research' questions by veterans are criticised by the community, including the one you answered upthread in this comment chain (settled at 0 at time of writing, which is fairly mild criticism as it goes). However, the cases where a notionally trivial answer QA is well-received are far more visible than the opposite, and a veteran user doing so lends it additional legitimacy
    – bertieb
    Mar 11 at 14:33
  • 2/ For example, this QA from the second top user, trivially answered with a pasted infographic from the BBC (a widely circulated infographic at the time); it also asks multiple questions, but I'm not sure how harshly this site judges that (tho from this example, I would have to conclude they are fine). This QA from the third highest rep user also demonstrates little research effort...
    – bertieb
    Mar 11 at 14:38
  • 3/3 Again, to be clear: I don't object to those questions, nor the users who asked them; nor do I wish to single out this site. But "lack of research effort" seems to be a criterion lacking consistency in how it is applied, which might be indicative of a lack of value in its application (there is an argument to be made that if a Q generates good, useful, insightful, well-explained answers then it is valuable regardless of any omission of 'I checked Wikipedia, textbooks, encyclopedias, articles & couldn't find an answer...' but well, the margins of this comment are too narrow to contain!)
    – bertieb
    Mar 11 at 14:44

Regarding the 1st Q "Why has the U.S. airdrop of supplies to Gaza been criticized as hypocritical?", if you have the 2-minutes patience to watch the clip linked by the OP in the Q, it already answers it (with multiple 'talking points'), so it seems hard to believe it's a real question the OP didn't already know the answer for.


Are these downvotes justified?

Voting is an absolute privilege of SE users. They don't have to "justify" it.

Is there any action to be taken?

No, unless there is some foul play e.g. registering multiple accounts to vote repeatedly. If you have good reasons to believe this is taking place, present them. Otherwise respect the right to vote without having to justify voting decisions.

  • voting is a privilegie, but there are times where people objectively vote wrong (at least on this site idk about the broader network). See politics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3005/…. Also, voting on a question because of whether or not it supports your agenda is wrong (questions shouldn’t support agendas at all, but everything benefits one viewpoint or another). Mar 5 at 2:02
  • 2
    @EkadhSingh-ReinstateMonica A vote is always subjective. By definition. Deciding whether a vote is "objectively" right or wrong is nonsense.
    – Greendrake
    Mar 5 at 2:14
  • there is no way to justify upvoting partisan nonsense (or upvoting or downvoting something for partisan reasons) IMO, maybe there’s something i’m missing but i doubt it. Mar 5 at 2:18
  • 2
    @EkadhSingh-ReinstateMonica Quite likely you're right that there's no way to justify, but you're still missing the point: it does not have to be justified.
    – Greendrake
    Mar 5 at 2:25
  • While it may be true that votes don’t have to be justified a general idea of we can normally be determined.
    – Joe W
    Mar 5 at 3:16

You must log in to answer this question.

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