my question, titled "Why Israeilis are politically granted the right to declare Palestine as their own land and state?", was first closed with the justification that "It is not a place to advance opinions or debate, but rather for exchanging objective information about the policies" and "seem to be mostly rhetorical questions with the intention of making a point about some political issue". I tried my best to show it was not the case. The situation was still good enough for me, as I have already raised my own answer to be critically criticized with opinions from people of different backgrounds and different beliefs, even if as comments, and there was still another answer to my Question which itself together with the comments below which was so informative for me.

This was good, even if the Q was closed (and not to say that I don't care much about the DVs, at least not as much as I used to care for the reasoning behind the DVs, which was the reason why I asked the Q and answered it by myself), but then the question was deleted. Maybe it's not so bad, as maybe I have already got enough info and feedback, but maybe it could be more informative for me if it was still (and at least for weeks to go) open, so maybe others could contribute as well.

The reason for deleting my Q was probably stated to be:

[@the gods from engineering:] "Politics is to be Secular". Sounds somewhat strange coming from someone living in an Islamic Republic, with a religious Supreme Leader. I don't mean to disparage your personal views of how politics should be, but clearly plenty of people think otherwise. So it's a bad premise for a Q to appeal to that. Even in the US, with a secular-ish constitution (at least in terms of separation), the influence of religion on politics is significant: the Christian right etc.


[mod @Philipp ♦] It doesn't seem that there is any intention to fix this question. I am ending this. If you want to have a debate, then a more debate-oriented website might be the place to go. If you are looking for a place to tell the world your personal political views, why not start a blog?

It doesn't seem fair to me as judged above. Being born in Iran and grown as a Shia Muslim provides a religious background for me, together with all cultural, historic and moral attitudes gained in such a society, but that's not the whole story. There are people in Iran who are against the its leader, governments, and even Islam, thanks to all the hate-speeches and cheap-freedoms advertised and promoted by media mostly supported by US, Israel and Saudi Arabia, in the name of human rights, and Secularism as a corner-stone of modernism. Such people are far from being the majority, but exist anyway and even from time-to-time appear as to be considerable, as their manifestation is sometimes more than those who are not alike. These people are even present at the ruling levels of the country, or many as Journalists and some as think tanks. So it is not strange that a variety of different doubtful ideas spread in the mind of people. I, personally, am firmly ground on my own beliefs but with no bias, that's a result of years of studying and experimenting the life from several perspectives and view points, and having conversations with many individuals of several different view points, many even in Stack Exchange, whether being of different sects of Islam, or Christianity, or Secular Jews and etc. .

Now I have some ideas in my mind. I want them to be criticized as much as possible, so that I can recognize the possible logical, historical, and other flaws in them. This will not happen if I open a blog, and I'm not at the level to "tell the world your personal political views". I'm merely sharing my ideas here with others, learning from other view points, and maybe help the others to see the world from my own viewpoint. That would be constructive for all, win-win.

That I said I'm not anti-Semite and some users seemingly thought I'm joking, was not a lie, as I don't lie due to my beliefs. Even in Quran Jews are respected as e.g. in:

لَيْسُوا سَوَاءً مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ أُمَّةٌ قَائِمَةٌ يَتْلُونَ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ آنَاءَ اللَّيْلِ وَ هُمْ يَسْجُدُونَ * يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَ الْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَ يَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَ يَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَ يُسَارِعُونَ فِي الْخَيْرَاتِ وَ أُولَئِكَ مِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ * وَ مَا يَفْعَلُوا مِنْ خَيْرٍ فَلَنْ يُكْفَرُوهُ وَ اللَّهُ عَلِيمٌ بِالْمُتَّقِينَ

Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. * They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous. * Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right. [3:113-115]

This does not mean among the Jews will never be people who are severely enemy toward Muslims, but interesting is that Muslims are so much free from hate of the other common people that Allah warns Mulsims not to take their enemies as friend. Maybe those who hate Jews in Western countries is due to a majority of them having Christian beliefs, assuming the Jews responsible behind how Jesus, the Christ, was sentenced to death, and murdered accordingly, but in Islam we don't thank it was the case, as we don't accept that Jesus, the Christ, was killed at all, but still alive living in the second level of the Heaven, and who will return in a near future.

Also my roots, or part of them, are Semite, and believe it or not Jews are respectable in Iran. Once I was talking on Islam.SE with a religious Zionist Jew living in US, and he said he very much likes to travel to Iran and visit Hamedan for Ister, but he will not due to his fear of Iranian people hating Jews, and I simply said he is wrong, and nobody (not in the strict sense, as there always exists exceptions) accuse a Jew in Iran for him being a Jew. What people in Iran mostly hate about, is the oppression from Israel (and its Western supporters) toward Palestinians (and Muslims, and people of the Middle East, and particularly Iran even before the Islamic revolution), many of the people in Israel being Jew at all (Jew as in Judiasm I mean, that is, religious), but mere secular Zionist.

With all that being said, returning back to my Question and answer, I still see no problem in them, no sever logical flaw, nor any disrespect against Jews. The only thing there is that I have not presume Israel as a holy state, or US (and other Western) government(s) always have good intentions or tell always the truth. So I pretty much like I am misjudged in Politics.SE. The question as appears to me really is around a political issue, not historical, nor legal or even moral, asking open-mindedly (as far as I can say) and asking to receive objective answers, beside my own answer being critically criticized.

  • 10
    You've got to make this way shorter if anyone is going to understand your meta question.
    – Jen
    Commented Apr 21 at 4:46
  • @Jen, sorry but a long low-quality question is better than a shorter Q that will not fully reflect the intention behind it, when the background of the questioner is perhaps so different than the background of its audience. Better it was if I could, maybe if I had better writing skill.
    – owari
    Commented Apr 22 at 2:32
  • I think the present tense of the question makes it seem like you are denying Israel's right to exist. Had you rephrased it as a question about the past, it would be an inquiry. But asking it about the present makes it sound like you are proposing that Israel's existence is an open question. If that's the case, then that's an advocacy position (and obviously a highly biased one).
    – wrod
    Commented Apr 27 at 1:00
  • @wrod, my question was about the past, but can still be the case, not by questioning why Israel exist or Jews have right to have a state or not, but by questioning why defending their right has no red line ever (Biden explicitly said that if my memories help). My own answer was that it is not due to humanity of any kind, but only for US (and probably other Western Governments) self-interest. Humanity, has always red-lines. Defending one side radically with no red-line, will verily be oppression against the other side.
    – owari
    Commented Apr 27 at 14:41
  • 1
    @owari I think you are trying to convince me of some point. I was simply pointing out how the question reads. Comments are not really meant for litigating politics positions.
    – wrod
    Commented Apr 28 at 2:38
  • @wrod, that was not intentional; so lame that apparently I am in conveying what I mean by my Q's, I have came to a point to explain what I really mean every here and there. Obie2.0 has great advices on why my question was misunderstood, and I hope to find a time and rephrase it, if I could do it properly at all. Thanks for your advice as well.
    – owari
    Commented Apr 28 at 3:21

2 Answers 2


The Q was IMHO rightfully deleted (although I'm one of two such votes) because it's a scattershot attack on the existence of the State of Israel, which as discussed here meets a def of antisemitism.

The Q also lacks focus and advanced various red herrings:

  • that secular supporters of Israel somehow do so because of the biblical claims of the Jews;

  • that because other countries don't get all their territorial claims fulfilled, Israel shouldn't exist;

  • it also compares Israel with ancient Mongol or Macedonian empires, while ignoring the realities of Jewish immigration to Palestine by the mid 20th century;

  • proposes that Jews should have been "sent" to an uninhabited territory.

Some of these can be perhaps excused by a poor command of English, but overall the post reads too much like anti-Israel propaganda (laundry list of complaints), and at the very least asks too many questions at once--there are 10 question marks in body of the Q. (I wrote several comments under the Q on some of these issues, but the OP selected only one in their post above.)

  • I see, you are probably correct, the main question was different, then the user "@bringThemHomeNow" edited the answer and I, myself, approved the edit, not being aware that the essence of the question would be altered doing so. The Q, as it used to be before the edit, was about the attitude of the Westerns who gave the right to Zionists to establish such a state, whether the Israelis had the right or not to so in other perspectives. So the 10 question that you refer to are not really questions that I meant to ask, but I was trying to give examples of why I think ...
    – owari
    Commented Apr 22 at 2:23
  • ... Westerners might have tried to give fake answers to cover a real intention: self-interest, not caring Jews at all, or at least, not to this extent that they do, sometimes even more than the Jews themselves, as it seems to be from time to time. Therefore, this is not anti-Semite but anti Westerners if you would insist to categorize it any way. Anyway, I liked the links you cited, maybe you could have posted an answer to the question if it was still open, answering the Q by showing the presumptions being probably/partly flawed.
    – owari
    Commented Apr 22 at 2:25

I don't think we need to make this this complicated. One of the - valid - goals here is to prevent antisemitism.

Which begs the question of what antisemitism consists of. One of the - contentious, I'll admit - criteria is denying the right of the state of Israel to exist.

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.

Or, to take another definition of antisemitism, suggested by the Guardian instead:

Denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality.

And the very core of this question consists of doing just that. So, it is not, by that definition of antisemitism, a salvageable question.

Now, of course, maybe some site, somewhere, can discuss what alternatives could have been considered in 1948, rather than supporting the state of Israel's existence. And then they can maybe move on to the question of how to "correct" that nowadays. River to the sea and all that.

But I see no great reason why we should be that site and that's why the question deserves deleting.

p.s. using a specific definition of antisemitism would be an improvement, IMHO, on lettings users loudly, and sometimes abusively, accuse others of being so, without any formal basis.

p.p.s. Considering denial of the right of Israel to exist, by itself, as antisemitism is consistent with much of the way Western press and politicians approach this subject. That leaves one plenty of leeway to criticize the Israeli government, as long as they don't run afoul of the other antisemitic markers. Which shouldn't be that hard if a user is posting in good faith: most of these markers are rather crude in nature.

  • 1
    My question was not to deny Israel's right to exist, as explained in my above comments to @thegodsfromengineering, but questioning the attitudes of Westerners, and my personal answer was already that their support was and is due to Self-interest, not because they love Jews or Judaism so much for biblical reasons (though many e.g. Evangelist individuals might do) or very much care for human-right as always trumpet it everywhere (hypocrisy, as appears to me)
    – owari
    Commented Apr 22 at 16:49
  • 1
    So do you still think my question, at least as explained in this meta, has anything about antisemitism, even with current understanding of "antisemitism" (which I do not agree upon)?
    – owari
    Commented Apr 22 at 16:51
  • 1
    Last, I agree with you that antisemitic is not well-defined. Why even questioning the right for establishing Israel would be antisemitic I do not know? People can ask why some people believe that God exists, but they can not ask about Israel state? If there is (are) answer(s) for such questions then the questions should be welcome. This is a QA website, why not to ask about anything which is political? One asks, and those who know the answer respond back. Some may understand that others' answers are better, and some may find flaws in what the used to think to be correct. Why this much bias?
    – owari
    Commented Apr 22 at 16:55
  • 2
    The IHRA definition of antisemitism is extremely controversial and problematic. I hope this is not the definition that is used at Politics Stack Exchange.
    – Ben Cohen
    Commented Apr 22 at 19:13
  • 1
    @BenCohen I am open to other suggestions. But I would point out that a lot of supposedly antisemitic questions get a new bill of health when one applies that definition. For example, the supposedly contentious: Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. No, that doesn't give Israel a clean bill of health because China occupies Tibet, as China is not democratic. And just because the Guardian doesn't like it doesn't mean much. This definition, as pointed out, is used by a number of international bodies. Commented Apr 22 at 19:56
  • But on the other hand Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. does expect that Israel provides the same due care for civilian foods and medicine that we would demand of our own governments. Commented Apr 22 at 19:58
  • Anyway, on the alternative proposed definition cited by Guardian, you'd still end up @ "Denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality." Which gets us back to my objection to this question. Commented Apr 22 at 20:02
  • 1
    There are many detractors of that definition besides for The Guardian. The UK Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn for one, but many others as well. I am certainly not advocating for the alternative definition that you mention, which is also problematic.
    – Ben Cohen
    Commented Apr 22 at 22:23
  • So, what would be an authoritative definition? You cite the Guardian article, but then you're not happy with their suggested alternative. Is it because it also states the right of Israel to exist? That seems a common enough divider between speech deemed to be antisemitic or not. I am sure you can find some anti-Zionist Jews that drop it, but perhaps precisely because that is part of their doctrinal beliefs. For many people, denying the right of Israel to exist at its current location is the cutoff line, simple as that. Commented Apr 23 at 0:49
  • 1
    And with regards to Corbyn, pardon me if don't take him as an inspiration on these matters. Commented Apr 23 at 0:52
  • 2
    The Guardian article itself mentions human rights organisations that disagree with the definition such as B'tselem. FWIW, my view is that we need a single definition of racism to cover all races and single definition of anti-religious bigotry to cover all religions. Anything else risks creating a hierarchy of races and religions. With regards to Corbyn, he was unfarily maligned and taken to the cleaners by the rightwing press, but we'll probably have to agree to disagree there.
    – Ben Cohen
    Commented Apr 23 at 9:15
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica This question wouldn't constitute antisemitism under the Jerusalem Declaration, as clarified by Guidelines 12 and 13. The interaction between Guideline 10 (which you cite) and these two Guidelines is discussed in the FAQ on the JD website. Commented Apr 26 at 17:56

You must log in to answer this question.

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