I understand your reasoning, but in my opinion it still leads to an unsatisfactory outcome. I didn't include a discussion of the numbers because they had already been answered, but the accepted answer still includes the words "yes, the meme is accurate in its primary statements". You say that propaganda sneaking through is a minor issue, but in this case it has not only snuck in, it has become validated by the accepted answer. I attempted to remedy the situation by commenting on the answer, and that was also deleted.

What is the recourse in such a situation? An accepted answer which includes an incorrect statement needs a response, yet the incorrect answer is allowed to stand while the response is deleted.

Is there an edit I could make to my answer that would make it acceptable?

@Wossname "I didn't include a discussion of the numbers because they had already been answered" - IMO, that was a mistake. The answers are supposed to stand on their own, not relying on other information that can be independently deleted - same principle as with links. If your answer is better (due to whatever additions you make to the number-crunching) - it will rise up, if not - a more concise answer would be upvoted.

TBH all answers to that Q addressed the number facts in extremely cursory manner, just pointing to the Wikipedia table that has the same--at least for the Jewish side/claims. That the Q was not closed despite its triviality (in that core regard) is ... interesting. Especially since you deleted some other Qs recently, even though non-banned users worked to improve them.

Since comments have a character limit I have responded to the points made in this answer in an edit to the question.

@DanilaSmirnov If that suggestion had been made in a comment on the answer, it would have given me an opportunity to improve it. Was moderator action required, or is the community voting sufficient to address which answers should rise up?

@OddThinking How is Tom's answers addressing the numbers? he just said "The numbers stated are generally accurate" and then used his own opinions to construct a narrative about how the low amount of migrants in other countries proves the involuntary nature.

@Ona: That's a totally different issue, that should be addressed elsewhere. Tom's answer has a low-quality reference (Wikipedia), and a poor attempt at matching the numbers on that page to the numbers in the meme. IMO, it isn't a trustworthy answer.

@Oddthinking my reasoning is Wossname's answer could be reposted if he adds "The numbers stated are generally accurate" and a wikipedia link? because that's the extent of tom's analysis with respect to accuracy

@Wossname maybe here is the right place to explain how my (accepted) answer leads to the conclusion that the meme is correct because the numbers are correct: If we accept "ethnic cleansing" as the attempt to wipe out or at least dramatically reduce a population, then the numbers of Arab nations indicate that his indeed has happened, while the numbers for Israel and Gaza/WB show a dramatic increase in population - either no ethnic cleansing happened there, or the by far most incompetent ethnic cleansing in history. (cont)

(cont) - looking at the OUTCOME of something is a valid approach if looking at the intent of involved parties is impossible or difficult because of complexity or propaganda (i.e. intents not stated or misrepresented as is common in politics). If the numbers support the statement made, then it is fair to assume the statement is accurate, unless someone can show that other factors lead to the same outcome. That's a common approach in all science. In non-experimental science it's hard to isolate factors and run lab experiments, but the basic principle remains.

@Ona " narrative about how the low amount of migrants in other countries proves the involuntary nature." - I'm eager to learn about similar cases of a group of the population dropping to near zero that occurred entirely voluntarily. I'll be happy to update or change my view if you can enlighten me.

@Tom: How do you know the numbers are correct? Wikipedia is not a great reference. (I like the expression: Wikipedia is great starting point for research, but terrible ending point.) You should follow up the references, ensure they are of high quality, check there are not competing references of similar quality, and reference those instead.

@Oddthinking if you believe the numbers to be incorrect, go ahead and find a reliable source for the actual numbers and write an answer to the original question. I've done a bit of searching and found the numbers to be generally accepted with differences in the details. WP is not the best reference but since there was a page EXACTLY about the question asked, I found that to be the best to link to.

@Tom: No, the onus is on the answerer here. You provided poor evidence to support your claims, and hence your answer is being used here as an example of how not to do it.

@Tom I explained in detail in my answer, reproduced above, why that is bad reasoning.

@Oddthinking I disagree. WP is a source, and does insist on citations. Many better sources are paywalled- e.g. statista.com/statistics/1422981/gaza-total-population - or isn't in any way better than Wikipedia. I don't understand what your standard here is. WP is not a primary source, which is why it is not accepted in academia, but we're not writing peer-reviewed journal articles here.

Tom: Take it up here

We are not writing peer-reviewed journal articles, but we should be citing them, where appropriate.

I do link to Wikipedia, but mainly for definitions of terms, backgrounders and other times where the facts are not in doubt. In this case, you cited Wikipedia for precisely the facts that were in doubt (and you didn't even show the meme numbers and Wikipedia matched - you just waved your hands.)