Talk:Amin al-Husseini

Archives

Talk:Amin al-Husayni/Archive 1 Talk:Amin al-Husayni/Archive 2

---

Pov flag

The introduction is not accurate and due to this, poved.
Indeed :

• introduction could make people think Husayni had stopped his activity after 1945 while he is the most known for its activity during 1948 war;

&& He is well known for being an antisemite, colaborator with the nazis, he came up with the idea to kill the jews in the holyland and exported it to Germany - we should add all this as well. Zeq 12:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• introduction could make people think he is "mainly" known for his antisemitism and that it is what the most caracterized him. The fact he was pictured as antisemite cannot be denied, the fact many historians consider him as such cannot be denied but "mainly" known for that is part of the israeli historiography and propaganda against him. Controversed matters should not be introduced as truths.
• "al-Husayni fought against the establishment of a Jewish Homeland in the territory of the British Mandate of Palestine.". As Zerthal explains, this is part of the israeli paranoia. Husayni fought for the establishment of a Arab independant state on the whole Palestine and, as a consequence, fought against the establishment of a Jewish state. The introduction mispresent events.

Alithien 12:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggest an alternative. Hornplease 09:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have written this on your talk page. Alithien 10:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I remove the tag. Alithien 10:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mallman-Cueppers

I have removed (a) dead links (b) expatica, which is not RS and (c) the press release in German, as well as all data based on it. I would like to see analysis of this claim, as well as mainstream historical reviews of Mallman-Cueppers' findings, rather than reports in the popular press. Anything less is unbecoming of the encyclopaedia and of the gravity of the statements. Hornplease 07:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Expatica link was quating AFP and DPa - both are relaible sources. The Mallman-Cueppers is not only a RS source but also an academic one. Do not remove those agaian. If you find a dead link - search the web and you will find a new one with the same content. There is no doubt on what the Mallman-Cueppers book sais .

We should also ask - well never mind. Zeq 11:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am yet to find a single review of the book in the scholarly literature other than a mention in the "recently published" section of the Journal of Holocaust and Genocide Studies. The Expatica link is not reliable in and of itself; however, I suspect that it was not quoting AFP, but a the press release from Stuttgart. At least, I think I've found a reference in the London Independent.

In general, whether or not there is 'no doubt' about what the book says - and I must say that there is doubt, since the only source is a university press release, and not an academic mention, let alone an English-language review - it should be presented as new and as yet unconfirmed research. Certainly, a claim that Husayni, however unpleasant a character, was actually in the loop about genocide, both planned and what was being executed on the ground, is a claim that can only be classed as extraordinary; if the only secondary source is the press release, I would like to see the text revised to indicate that.

Also, please feel free to either complete your thought, or to strike it out. Hornplease 03:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Walter Laqueur on Al-Husayni's (lack of) religiosity

Fascism made certain inroads in the 1930s among secular elements in Egypt, Syria and Iraq. It should be recalled that Haj Amin al Husseini the Mufti of Jerusalem spent the war years as Hitler's guest in Berlin. But in retrospect there are doubts with regard to the depth of Haj Amin's religiosity. He requested for instance the bombing of Jerusalem by the German air force. It is unlikely that a truly pious Muslim would have acted this way.

"The origins of facism: Islamic Facism, Islamophobia, Antisemitism", Walter Laqueur, Oxford University Press, 25.10.2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kitrus (talk • contribs) 23:39:15, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

I think it is more a pov from Laqueur on Islam and religiosity than on Al-Husseini.

His point is less that Mufti was not pious than people that would bomb a city are not good Muslim.

Alithien 08:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Images deleted

It looks like someone really did not like the image of the Mufti and Hitelr Zeq 13:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I don't know how to get it back and who deleted it. Alithien 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The file was hosted on the Wikimedia Commons, but the uploader could never prove his assertion of "having permission", so it was deleted as a fair use violation. You could try again here, but given the image's history, it'd have a pretty high hurdle to meet in order to remain, given its past issues. Tarc 19:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong !!!v This is clearly falls within the "fair use" the image is of historical importance now. No copyright could hold once an image become such a public image. If they could use the photo: http://yahel.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/libro-historico-los-nazis-planeaban-una-extension-del-holocausto-en-palestina-con-ayuda-de-los-arabes/ and it is all over the web: http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-06,RNWE:en&q=hitler%20mufti&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi there should not be any problemZeq 07:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If it was hosted on commons, it is not strange it was deleted. Other will soon follow. Fair use is not authorized on commons. Alithien 06:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Clearly the dlete of this imge is using 'wikilayering" to prevent an imgae that is not comfertable to their POV. People who edit from such dep bias should not be editing this article. Zeq 07:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• What you think should be fair use does mean that it actually is fair use. It is a messy, ugly subject on the Wikipedia right now, as images are being deleted en masse across the spectrum. If you want to dive in, then head on over to WP:NONFREE. Tarc 14:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no "cabale" against some images. All wiki has forbidden fair use and on commons they have started a chase against any image that is not 100% free. They go too far but I will not try to put me in front of the administrators group performing this job. THey don't discuss much and block very fast. Alithien 19:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal that could "close the case" ?

Would the following sentence be relevant for the introduction ?

Until today, Al-Husayni has been seen as a hero by the palestinian nationalist movement and pictured as a virulent antisemite by Israeli historiography.

Alithien 15:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Post-war influence

"Afterwards, he lost most of his remaining political influence and died in 1974."

That's a major oversimplification at best. Non-Arab governments weren't really interested in anything he had to say after 1949, but he still remained the undisputed single most publicly-prominent leading Palestinian Arab political personality down to 1964 (when Nasser elevated Ahmed Shuqeiri to a position of leadership). AnonMoos 02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That is possible but then the information should be first added in the article... Alithien 06:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment

why do people who don't read the article's of anything serious about the subject matter insist on making edits? i think this edit is an error.^[13][14]

"Greater Syria was to include territory now occupied by Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel" - [15]

this is from the article, obviously, there's room to expand, but if you don't know the material don't have the right source, why force false information in? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

i'm still contesting this, but i'll take my time before i collect proper citations for evidence and represent my reservation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ian is an editor in good standing in Middle Eastern related articles, and from what I have seen is quite knowledgeable on these subjects. These are obviously contentious issues, but accusing long-standing editors of not knowing anything about it or of inserting false information just because their views happen to differ from your own is not helpful. I suggest you reexamine your attitude here. Tarc 12:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

some editing to tone down the language, thank you for the serious comment you had a good point. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou,
In '48 Abdallah wanted to take as much of Palestine as he could but indeed, his ambitions was to get as much as he could of great Syria. But Husseini only fought against his ambitions on Palestine, he didn't mind what could arise in Syria, even if Syrian and/or Egyptians did ! Alithien 13:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll only ask a question, who here read a biography book on abdullah the first?
p.s. Alithien, if you have a sources for this, it would be far better than a statement that's just as good as my statements. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A source of what exactly ? On what do you complain precisely ? I only read 10 books about that war and there is no problem to discuss about the ambitions of Abdallah on Great Syria but this article is about Al-Husseini. What is your point ! Alithien 16:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

this revert is unreferenced. if you have a good reference for it, then our argument would probably end. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mufti's antisemitism

At the time I gathered 12 references arguing that the Mufti was antisemite, posed antisemitic acts or pronounced antisemitic discourses.
Nevertheless, Idith Zertal, in Israel's Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood explains that -true or not- this "antisemitism" has been excessively emphasized.
I don't think this "alleged antisemitism" is relevant but I think the "emphasize of this antisemitism, true or not", is.
We can leave the reader decide by himself, reading the facts, if he was antisemite but the emphase should be explained.
I underline that user:Ian Pitchford doesn't share my mind as far as I know. Alithien 13:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So you are basing one writers view as to whether or not this man is an antisemite. His antisemitism certianly is relevant, and his biography enthesizes his antisemitism. What evidence is there that he is not an antisemite? Yahel Guhan 04:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not a defining characteristic, and certainly does not belong in the lead as this gives it undue weight. The antisemitism claim should be and already is covered in detail in the body of the article. Tarc 05:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

and since it is covered in detial within the body of the article, it disserves mention in the lead. How is it giving undue weight? Yahel Guhan 05:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Yahel,
Given we don't know him, I don't see how we could state he is antisemite or not, so we must base on reliable sources.
You claim that his biography "enthesizes his antisemitism" but in that case, why his biographie (Elpeleg and Matter) do not claim he is antisemite.
"What evidence is there he was not antisemite ?". On the contrary, if we want to state he is antisemite, we have to provide the reliable information and the reliable sources that prove this (b: Pearlman is not one, and Schechtman neither, nor is Ben Gurion...).
I don't sayt they don't exist but I don't have them.
Qu: Tarc, where do you consider the antisemitism is covered in the article ? Alithien 08:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni#The_Holocaust, last paragraph. Tarc 12:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole issue of antsemitism vs antizionism was dealt long ago (I think it came out of my first arbcom case) and Fred Bauder and others agree he was clearly an antisemite[16]. The compromise with Ian was for "known for" instead of stright "antisemit". I really don't rememeber the exact deatils of the discussion but I do remeber clearly the outcome "known for antisemitism". After that compromise a scholarly book (Kupers) came out in it clear indication that he was active in plans of extrmination of the jews. I think this ends the discussion (Kupers is based on documents from the Nazis themselfs) this also show that Adit Zertal caraterization about so-called "israel wanted to show him as antsemit" is totaly wrong. Zertal is entitled for her POV but she has no proof to base it on. Zeq 17:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

we should also go back to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-11_Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni . Since they actually removed the sources of Mulman and Kupers from the lead where they belong.

"Mallmann and Cueppers said the Nazis had planned to exploit Arab friendship for their plans.

"The most important collaborator with the Nazis and an absolute Arab anti-Semite was Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem," they said in the book. He was a prime example of how Arabs and Nazis became friends out of a hatred of Jews.

Al-Husseini had met several times with Adolf Eichmann, Adolf Hitler's chief architect of the Holocaust, to settle details of the slaughter.

DPA "

DPA is German news agency Zeq 17:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I am quite sure Ian refuse any compromise where "known for his antisemitism" would have been written.

I don't mind Fred Bauder's mind. He doesn't know anything about the topic.

Don't attack Zertal too fast. First she is considered as a reference by all historians from all wings and she doesn't say he wasn't antisemite. She says he has been exagerately pictured as an antisemite.

What you quote is already in the article. It doesn't justify to write the Mufti was or is known as antisemite.

Alithien 18:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not say Zertal is an antisemit her self. She has political views - about cooperation between Jews and Arabs - which I actually share. However, such views can not influance the past only the future. Zertal also try to change the past with her views. She is enetiled to her views but in this ebecclopedia it is called POV. She is in a minority POV that can be ignored. Most scholars agree colaborating with neo-nazis is anti-semitic in nature. the mufti is indeed known for being anti-semitic. Zeq 19:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write you would have written Zertal is antisemite ???

But anyway, she has not a minority view. I don't know any negative critics against her work.

Do you have any ?

Alithien 19:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reguarding Zertal, it does seem like a minority (and possibly fringe) view. She isn't notable by wikipedia standards. She has no wikipedia article, and there is no evidence presented about her scholarship, if she even is a scholar. Yahel Guhan 20:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Many say he was anti-semite. She sais Israel over emphasiosed his antisemitism for political reasons. I would say that put's her in the extreme minority. Zeq 04:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot put her where you like :-)

Here is a link in the Israeli academy

She is well-known on the topic and all the critics are read are positive. Her book has been published by Cambribde University Press

She has 145 references in google books

Alithien 06:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

right|thumb|250px|Not like Dachau. Is it. Herr Mufti. Caricature published in NYTimes 16 May 1948

Haj Amin al Husseini’s anti-semitism is reported by several of his contemporaries, historians having studied his biography or Nazism, journalists and politicians :

• In her book « Eichmann in Jerusalem », Hannah Arendt who was Professor at Princeton University writes : « The Grand Mufti's connections with the Nazis during the war were not secret; he had hoped they would help him in the implementation of some final solution in the Near East »

• In « The Grand Mufti », a biography that is considered paradoxically « as rehabilitating him in emphasing his contribution to the palestinian cause » , historian Zvi Elpeleg writes: « His many comments show that he was not only delighted that Jews were prevented from emigrating to Palestine, but was very pleased by the Nazi’s final solution. »

• In an interview granted to Haaretz, Dr Walter Reich, Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Professor of International Affairs, Ethics and Human Behavior , reports that « In 1941, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, met with a number of Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler, hoping to get them to side with the Arab cause and even to extend anti-Jewish measures to the Jews in Palestine. In his meeting with Hitler in November 1941, al-Husseini obtained the statement from Hitler that "Germany's objective [is]...solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere." The phrase used by Hitler in this conversation, "Vernichtung des...Judentums," is one that was used in connection with the Holocaust. Moreover, al-Husseini worked to stop the rescue of Jews, engaged in broadcasts for the Germans, and in 1943 helped organize a Bosnian Muslim division of the Waffen SS that was implicated in atrocities against Jews, Serbs and others in the Balkans. »

• On the website of Simon Wiesenthal Center , one can read : « Hajj Amin Al Husseini (1895-1974) was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and important Arab leader. He supported the Nazis, and especially their program for the mass murder of the Jews. He visited numerous death camps encouraged Hitler do the extend the "Final Solution" to the Jews of North Africa and Palestine. »

• In an article published in New York Times, journalist Edwin Black, author of « IBM and the Holocaust » , writes in reporting events of 1941 : « His venomous rhetoric filled the newspapers and radio broadcasts in Tehran. The mufti was a vocal opponent of allowing Jewish refugees to be transported or ransomed into Jewish Palestine. Instead, he wanted them shipped to the gas chambers of Poland. »

• In his book « Mufti of Jerusalem », Moshe Pearlman, historian close to Ben Gurion writes : «Arabs...were called upon, in the name of the Koran and the honour of Islam, to sabotage the oil pipelines, blow up bridges and roads along British lines of communications, kill British troops, destroy their dumps and supplies, mislead them by false information, withhold their support. The exhortations usually included the suggestion that they could save their souls by massacring the Jewish infidels in their midst.... »

• In her controversed book « From Time Immemorial : the origin of the Arab Jewish conflict over Palestine », Joan Peters, reports that « In 1940, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, requested the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy. »

• In his book « The Gramsi Factor », Chuck Morse, journalist and Massachusetts candidate for US Congress writes : « On 1 March 1944, in a radio Broadcast to the Arab people from Berlin, the Mufti stated : "Arabs! Rise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them »

• In « Israel, Islam and the church », Paul Carlson, who taught Scripture classes on Old and New Testaments, , refering to Michael Bar Zohar writes : « Blood was what the Mufti demanded in his speeches broadcast from Cairo... (…) And no sooner had the United Nations announced their decision that the Jihad started. The outcome was not difficult to see with 40 millions Arabs fighting against 650,000 Jews. »

Notes and references

odd category addition

What is the reasoning for the Category:Palestinian terrorist incidents in Europe add? I am not seeing a fit here at all. Tarc 21:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This must be a mistake. Alithien 17:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking for more co-operation

Instead of fighting on antisemitism or antizionism I decided to join those who expended the lead. I hope highlighting known and documented parts of his life will help the reader to decide for themself. I still think we should put the label antisemit back in the lead but it does not make sense to do it now as this is being reverted. I am sure we can cooperate more on this article and eventually reach consenus. After all his role is undsputed and well documented. Zeq 04:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What you wrote is undue:weight and not consensus. Alithien 06:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I just added few years from his life that were for some reason absent from the lead. You can not erase the man history between 1936 to 1947 just because he did things that you may not want to highlight. Your point of undue wieght is not accepted - any simple observation about the war years to his biography will show that it mneeds to be included . Zeq 10:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zeq,

Please, refrain from "personnal attacks" : things that you may not want to highlight.

If you want to add something to this consensual version, let's discuss this before on the talk page. As I am currently doing about the antisemitism matter. Alithien 10:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not a personal attck on you at all.I am sorry you read it as such. It is clear that you want to avoid mentioning the war years in the lead - that is after all what you have done twice now. Please self revert. Zeq 10:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He was sent to exile in 1937. The remaining is not relevant. Alithien 10:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly he was pro-Palestinian. His going to Germany doesn't necesarrily mean he was an anti-semite like the Nazi's were anti-semites. Were Stern Gang members anti-semites when they asked the Nazi's to fight together against the English? --JaapBoBo 11:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice Original research, in any case his antisemitism is clear from what he said and what he did not from his trip to Germany. And btw, I think the sten gang were antisemit but that is irelevant and OR as well. Zeq 11:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As is the alleged Mufti antisemitism irrelevant...

Alithien 11:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Read what I wrote. the stern gang is irelevant. The Mufti antsiemitism is of course relvent but you keep reverting it... Zeq 12:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would Mufti alleged antisemitism be relevant ? Alithien 12:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Because scholary sources describe him as such. Zeq 12:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This prooves the information is reliable, not relevant.

What is the proportion of scholars books concerning the Mufti discussing its alleged antisemitism ?

I made the job and I can tell you a few lines only and barely using the word "antisemite". Alithien 14:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Zeq, a solitary source in a travel magazine says he was an "absolute antisemite". That is hardly a preponderance of all historians. This is a recurring problem you seem to have in many articles, in that you wish to jam the most damning and controversial information into the article lead where it simply does not belong. Tarc 14:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A scholary source is not "a travel magazine". This is an academic book. The book was quoted by DPA and AFP (news agencies) the fact that the only link remained refernced in the article is for the DPA report on expadica web site does not reduce the creadability of the book itself. If you think Malman and Kuppers are not good sources you should raise it with the german university in which they are professors... Zeq 14:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said he was not "antisemite". But all historians do not claim so and the relevance of this information for the introduction is not proven. Alithien 15:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

University source

Here is the source and an english trnaslation. This is actually already in the article so can we now say in the lead that he was antisemite ?

http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/aktuelles/presse/2006/36.html

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/aktuelles/presse/2006/36.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DNationalsozialisten%2Bplanten%2BHolocaust%2Bin%2BPal%25C3%25A4stina%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DRNWE,RNWE:2005-06,RNWE:en

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/3/0,1872,3930019,00.html

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/3/0,1872,3930019,00.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=6&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DNationalsozialisten%2Bplanten%2BHolocaust%2Bin%2BPal%25C3%25A4stina%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DRNWE,RNWE:2005-06,RNWE:en

this is what it say (scholary source):

" Over Final Solution

Der erklärte Antisemit el-Husseini floh 1941 vor den Briten nach Berlin und plante zusammen mit den Nazis die Judenvernichtung. The declared anti-Semite el-Husseini fled in 1941 before the British to Berlin and planned together with the Nazis, the Jews destruction. Bei mehreren Treffen mit Adolf Eichmann seien Details der geplanten Morde festgelegt worden. In several meetings with Adolf Eichmann were details of the planned killings has been established. Und Hitler versprach er, genügend willige Araber zu mobilisiern. And he promised Hitler, enough willing to mobilisiern Arabs. Sie sollten als Schergen die Endlösung übernehmen - über die Art und Weise lässt sich allerdings nur spekulieren. They should be seen as henchmen of the Final Solution-on the way can only speculate. "Aber es wäre wahrscheinlich weit mehr in militärischen Formen abgelaufen, denn die Juden Palästinas waren auch bewaffnet", so Klaus-Michael Mallmann. "But it would probably be far more in military forms expired, as the Jews of Palestine were also armed," said Klaus-Michael Mallmann. "Es wäre zu wilden Schiessereien gekommen, dominant Araber gegen Juden in Palästina." "It would be too wild shoot come to dominate Arabs against Jews in Palestine." "Die Geschichte des Nahen Ostens wäre völlig anders verlaufen und ein jüdischer Staat hätte dort wohl nie gegründet werden können, wenn das Vorhaben von Deutschen und Arabern gemeinsam in die Tat umgesetzt worden wäre", schreiben Mallmann und Cüpppers. "The history of the Middle East would be entirely different story and a Jewish state there would probably never be established if the project by the Germans and Arabs together in the deed would have been implemented," write Mallmann and Cüpppers. Ausweitung des Massenmords Expansion of genocide

Nur die Niederlage Rommels Ende 1942 in Ägypten gegen die britische Armee habe eine Ausweitung des Massenmords verhindert, so die beiden Historiker in ihrem Aufsatz in dem gerade erschienenen Sammelband "Deutsche, Juden, Völkermord - Der Holocaust als Geschichte und Gegenwart". Only the defeat of Rommel at the end of 1942 in Egypt against the British army was an extension of the genocide prevented, the two historians in her essay just published in the anthology "Germans, Jews, Genocide - The Holocaust as history and the present." Im Herbst erscheint von gleichem Autorenduo ein ganzes Buch zum geplanten Holocaust in Palästina. In the fall of the same appears Autorenduo an entire book on the planned Holocaust in Palestine. "

translation:

"Over Final Solution

The declared anti-Semite el-Husseini fled in 1941 before the British to Berlin and planned together with the Nazis, the Jews destruction.

In several meetings with Adolf Eichmann were details of the planned killings has been established.

And he promised Hitler, enough willing to mobilisiern Arabs.

They should be seen as henchmen of the Final Solution-on the way can only speculate. "But it would probably be far more in military forms expired, as the Jews of Palestine were also armed," said Klaus-Michael Mallmann. "It would be too wild shoot come to dominate Arabs against Jews in Palestine."

"The history of the Middle East would be entirely different story and a Jewish state there would probably never be established if the project by the Germans and Arabs together in the deed would have been implemented," write Mallmann and Cüpppers.

Expansion of mass expansion of genocide

Only the defeat of Rommel at the end of 1942 in Egypt against the British army was an extension of the genocide prevented, the two historians in her essay just published in the anthology "Germans, Jews, Genocide - The Holocaust as history and the present." " In the fall of the same appears Autorenduo an entire book on the planned Holocaust in Palestine. "

Zeq 14:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that you are (per usual) giving undue weight to a solitary source. Leave it covered in the body of the article where it is now. There's simply no need and no call for what you're trying to jam into the lead. Tarc 15:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

More NPA from Tarc. This is not a solitary source. In any case it is a scholary source, others source claim the same - otherwise Zertal would not need to come out and claim he is not an antisemite. I ask aagin that you applogize for your PA and revert back to a reasonable version that ddescribe his action during and before the war. All are well documented facts. Zeq 15:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have brought quotes from another scholary source: [17] - he researched the mufti life extensivly and documented it in his book and here: http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/hitlers-legacy-islamic-antisemitism-in-the-middle-east Zeq 16:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The controversy around this gentleman doesn't talk for him.

It is not what could be called a reference for an historical topic.

Alithien 16:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, you added material in the introduction once again without commenting here before as was asked to you.

I note also that once again you threat a contributor.

It has been explained to you that :

• this introduction was reached out of a consensus. You already tried to modify this some months ago
• if you want to add something you are asked you several times with civily to come on the talk page first. you don't respect this requirement
• what is gathered in the article and in the introduction should respect DUE WEIGHT

Alithien 16:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithein,

I edit with good faith and I don't make threats. I don't accept the way you see how DUE WEIGHT should apply here. The subject of this article is viwed by some as Hero of Arab freedom and by others (including many scholary sources) as an antisemite colborator with the Nazis.

I was willing , for the time being, to postpone the discussion on the antisemite label but since more facts about his life were added from what you call "the consensus version" I have decided to expend a bit more on the years which were not covered.

So far, you have not offered any enclopedia reason for your stream of reverts. It is my right to be bold and edit this article. I don't have to ask your premission. On the other hand it is you, if you decide to revert, that should explain why you delete other editors work. Please respect other editors and stop deleting their work. Zeq 16:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOLD suggests that one can go ahead and make changes, yes, but it isn't a shield that you can use to protect your editing from scrutiny and reversal, if warranted. Again, the problem isn't so much the content; rather it is the placement. As I've said far too many times to count now, you frequently try to put too much into the lead that simply does not belong. That's where the undue weight problems arise. Tarc 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you object an edit - you should discuss it on talk instead of just reverting. The Lead should stand on it's own - see WP:Lead . as such, all aspects of his bio should be included. You can not erase streaches of 6-7 years with no good reason - so far you have never discussed why you think those years should be ignored (excpect claiming DUE WEIGHT - which I don't accept since those years are covered extnsivly in the article and as such should be refelcted in the lead. Zeq 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is collaborative encyclopaedia.

The fact you -alone against everybody- want to change this introduction -refusing to discussion this before- cuold make people think that you "don't look for collaboration" but uses WP principles as a shield to add what all the contributors of this article who have some knowledge consider as pov-pushing.

In more of what was written before and that you don't take into account (consensus, civility, due weight), I add that the link in wikipedia about him show your source in controversed.

Other historians doesn't share this "mind".

Controversed material should be detailed as such and not put in the introduction of the article.

What you added will be removed.

Alithien 18:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

NB: I had already asked you to write Alithien and not Ali. So, please, write Alithien.

First off, we are discussing it here, so that crutch of a point of yours is moot, and has been some time. Second, please stop referring people to WP:LEAD when you do not even appear to grasp it yourself, esp "...and briefly describing its notable controversies". Note the words "briefly" and "notable". You trying to put in every quasi-controversial thing al-Husayni ever did is what is running afoul of those guidelines. Tarc 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

furthermore, you should not be diving into specific allegations and charges in the lead that require citations. This is supposed to be a broad introduction to the subject matter; not a place to make claims and assertions with footnotes. Tarc 18:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarc, please read WP:Lead. The lead should stand on it's own as a mini article. You can not highlight some aspect of his life while surpresing others. All parts and aspects of the bio should be given equal weight. The fact that he organized a revolt in Palestine is equaly important as the one in Iraq. His hatred for the Jews, his colaboration with the Nazis is important and since it spaned many years must be described correctly. Off couse the real nittygritty details are in the article but the lead should stand on it's own - see WP:lead Zeq 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What part of "...please stop referring people to WP:LEAD" did you not understand? The way it is now already provides a concise introduction to the subject matter. What you are trying to do goes above and beyond that, unnecessarily and against the guidelines for articles leads. Tarc 21:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarc,

1. you are again insulting me. claiming that I don't understand what I quote. I ask you for the 4th or 5th time to stop personal attcks and appologize.
2. here is a quote from WP:Lead that I was refering to:

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."

• We should describe the context in which he operated (Nazi Germany rise to power while British rule palestine), notable contversies (his role or alleged role in the 1920 pogroms, in being the instigar pushing Hitler to extrminate the jews, his help to Hitler, his orgenizng the revolt against the Britsh in Iraq etc..We should also explain why is he important (for some he is a great leader while for others he is a despised colaborator) - all this in NPOV fashion. His life are looked at very diffrently by his supporters and by those he opreated against. We should reflect, in the lead, both views. Zeq 07:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you do not understand the guidelines on article leads. It stands on its own, it introduces the topic, then the body of the article goes into detail. You are trying to stick in too much detail into the lead. Tarc 12:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Again here is a quote from WP:Lead

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."

Zeq 13:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of the name

If the spelling of the article is changed, then it must be changed in the article body too and also for all the articles of his family members.
Please, be civil and do not proceed before discussing here to evaluate the job and the interest of such a work. Alithien 06:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the name was changed in all the places I found. If I missed anything this is not a reason to revert everything I did. It seems you are not respectfull of othjer people work and you just revert the article again and again. Zeq 07:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You changed it once. There remained more than 50 other cases in the article and there are 4 articles with the same spelling. I started to correct and then I was a little bit upset. You have been asked 5 times to comment here -before- any change you would like to make.

So, I remind you for the 6th time to respect what is asked you and to discuss any modification in that article before you proceed to this. This request is remainded by the flag on the top of this talk page that has been there for months...

Alithien 10:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no obligation on me that you also don't have on you. So far you have reverted and reverted and reverted - even the spelling of the article name. If you want to start acting civil set an example. Self revert and from there discuss any change you want. I have always discussed my changes but I don't have to do it just because you demand it. Zeq 10:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not just me. This is the tag on the top of the article.

But if you openly refuse to collaborate, that is your matter. Alithien 10:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I am the one that seek coopreation and you are the one reverting all the time. So act based on the same rulls you want others to act. I have discussed my changes in adavance . Now you can self revert your revert and suggest the changes you want. My comments/discussion are above this section. you don't even bother to answer. Let me make a suggestion: discuss the subject of this article not me. Zeq 11:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed spellings (except for direct quotes) to Husayni to match the article name. Let's see Zeq provide some proof that Husseini is "more common". Tarc 12:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In google a search on Amin Husseini give 176,000 entries. all other versions of his name give less thann 30,000 Zeq 13:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That isn't even the correct way to search. Put the full name in quotes and you'll see that that al-Husseini comes to 5,510 and al-Husayni comes to 4,630. A negligible difference, especially considering the inexactness of google tests. So unless there's something else compelling, I see little reason to change from what it already is. Tarc 13:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Many places are encclopyic and they write Hesseini, Haj Amin etc... - so by all means do conduct a full search and report back. Zeq 13:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

try this:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&rls=RNWE%2CRNWE%3A2005-06%2CRNWE%3Aen&q=%22Amin+Husseini%22+OR+Haj+%22Amin+al-Husseini%22++OR+%22AL-HUSSEINI%2C+AMIN+%22+++OR+%22AL-HUSSEINI%2C+HAJ+AMIN+%22&btnG=Search

61,500

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&rls=RNWE%2CRNWE%3A2005-06%2CRNWE%3Aen&q=%22Amin+Husayni%22+OR+Haj+%22Amin+al-Husayni%22++OR+%22AL-Husayni%2C+AMIN+%22+++OR+%22AL-Husayni%2C+HAJ+AMIN+%22&btnG=Search

3,000

but if you have more variations let's try. Zeq 13:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think my results are more definitive. Thanks, though. Tarc 13:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why ? Zeq 13:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning flags at the beginning of the article

A flag was added at the top of this talk page to warn people to discuss here any modification of the article before they proceed to this. Zeq, could you please respect this policy (5th request) ? Alithien 06:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Definition of relevance

The introduction must reflect the relevance of each information with its due weight. This is currently the case. Alithien 14:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I always discuss changes . Please see this: [18]. It seems to me it is you who revert everything including spelling of words in forign languges - to which there is no "right" spelling. It seems you insist to just have the article your way. Zeq 07:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Results so far

[19] shows that reverters sometimes win. The article lead is in great need of improvment but the reverters (2 of them) have so far resisted any change. there were several attempts at compromise (the first debate was on the anti-semitism label) but even without that label no change is possible to this article unless more cooler heads will join the edit. I think this result totaly defeats the spirit of Wikipedia of cooperation in edits. Zeq 19:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, it shows that facts win over opinion, and that following established Wiki guidelines on the lead wins over trying to get your own way. Tarc 19:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No. it does not show that. Wikipedia is eveolving and the fact that over 58 changes by 5 editors, you and Alithein were able to resist even the smallest of changes, including ones that has to do with a more conventional spelling thatn the one you choose - this shows that something is wrong and that your reverts and edit-war paid off for now. It also shows that the two of you are not willing for even the smallest compromise - this does not bowed well for any future compromise.

PS the fact, that you still call your POV "fact" and other people POV "Opinion" shows you are not really willing to accept WP:NPOV. I will give you few days to review policy and decide if you want to include only your version of the "facts" in articles you edit or you are willing to accept that there are two sides and both must be presented. For example, there are clearly those who see Husseini as an antisemit....There are clearly scholars who think that his riole in the holocausr is important (if not the most important) part of his biography. Zeq 21:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is only a cabal if you want there to be one. Tarc 21:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, it seems to me that you want to trap us and prepare an ArbCom rather than to make this article evolve and really to discuss.

Maybe it will work, maybe not.

But if you want to make changes in that article, for the 7th time, I suggest you respect the collaboration spirit and discuss them first here, as I did concerning the "Mufti and antisemitism" section I want to add and as the flag at the top of this talk page suggests contributors to do.

Alithien 06:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to trap anyone. Given my background it would be stupid of me to want another ArbCom, however if needed I will do it. It has been shown in the past that both sides in Arbitration have potential what to loose so it is wise for everyone (and for the project) to avoid that and try other ways of "dispute resolution". In respect of the collaboration spirit I am giving Tarc few days to re-think his attitude to this article. You have been more cooperative in the past and I am sure that without Tarc attitude you and I I can reach a compromise. I hope Tarc would also want to take part in a compromise. You have few days to think, you can use them to suggest compromises or add to the article lead - I will stay away from iot for few days. Do your best to be fair maybe I will not need to edit at all. Zeq 07:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

• I just wanted to check with Alitein and Tarc if they have used the time out to think what they are willing to change in the article lead section. I suggest they review what I put together in the RFC and previous versions that they reverted. I am giving them more chance to actually be the first and make the changes to include those missing years from his bio into the lead. Zeq 15:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, I have edited this article in accordance to my interpretations of WP:LEAD. Your suggestion that either I or Alithien need a "time out" from edits that we believe are constructive to this article can be construed as a violation of WP:AGF. Shall I drag you before the AN/I now, or do you plan to apologize here first? Tarc 16:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Is this a threat ?
  • If you would bother to read what I wrote, you will see that I said that I am taking a time out from editing this article. I wrote above:

    "I will stay away from it(i.e. the article) for few days"

  • My only suggestion to you is that you use my time out to think how to become a more cooperative editor (and as i wrote "think what you are willing to change in the article lead section") - if to suggest that is a violation of some sort - by all means "drag you before the AN/I now".... Zeq 16:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, your initial "I just wanted to check..." post above was needlessly inflammatory, in that it is suggesting that other editors are doing wrong. We have a difference of opinion as to what WP:LEAD is calling for. If you wish to graciously step away from the article for the time being, then that's your decision. Your away-time is not going to change my opinion; this isn't a matter of "cooperation", it is a matter of a guideline interpretation. Let's see what commentary the RfC brings from 3rd parties before proceeding any further. Yes?

And please, calm down wit the "OMG threat" business. If I feel that you're violating AGF then I'd certainly be entitled to report it, wouldn't I? Just as you or Guhan are. Tarc 16:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"inflammatory" - no way. I just wanted to check if you are using the time out to see what you are willing to change. This is not an acusation or anything. If you think the article is just prefect and you are not willing to consider any change (you have after all rejected all my proposals) and you think that the years that are not covered in the lead should not be covered in the lead - just say so. If on the other hand you want to cooperate and suggest your own version for the needed modifications - please feel free to do so and suggest how to make the lead confirm better with WP:lead Zeq 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

a Quote from WP:Lead: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." . The lead of this article is still coming short of the policy and need to be changed. I am, still taking a timeout(from my editing) hoping others would make an effort to enhance the lead. Zeq 05:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Except the controversy around his alleged antisemitism (ie, that -true or not-, he is pictured as a virulent antisemite, everything is in the lead).

The real degree of his antisemitism is not relevant except somebody finds a consistant scholar analysis that would analyse the consequence and importance of Mufti's antisemitism.

All that I have on that topic is a comment from Ilan Pappé considering the Arab leaders antisemitism lead them to underestimate yishuv, at the contrary of Abdullah who was aware of its real power. Very few for the article. Unthinkable for a lead. Alithien 08:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So please read the article body again, pleanty of information. Also look at the sources I added and Tarc deleted. Pleanty of info that need to be refelcted in the lead. Zeq 08:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's proceed step by step.

Could you select *1* example in these and write this here below. Alithien 09:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[20] which you reverted in it's enetirety. Zeq 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Step by step

jewish state or jewish homeland in Palestine ?

• Why do you want to replace "Jewish state" with "Homeland for the Jewish People" ? Alithien 10:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Because that is what it is and that is what the balfur declration is about and that is what the Mufti objected.

Jewish state (Judenstadt) is more relevant and more used.

What differences do you see betweeh both these expressions. Alithien 12:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

see this for the exact terminlogy used that time: Balfour Declaration of 1917 Zeq 15:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Judenstadt is the name all historians used.

Homeland for the Jewish People is longer and doesn't bring anything.

It sounds with a strange romantism

Husseini and Arab leaders were not opposed that Palestine would become a "homeland for the Jewish People" (in an Arab state) but they were opposed to massive immigration (later to any immigration) and to a Jewish state on what they considered "Arab lands".

If you still don't agree, please answer to all 4 points; not only one.

Alithien 16:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(...)

Alithien, take it one by one as you requested. The issue of "Jewish state" is well explained and the languge I used is taken form the balfour declaration which was used at that time. also don't use French here I have no idae what you say. Zeq 14:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

can someone xplain what this means:

I don't agree any "coup de force".

The Time is not relevant when scholar learns us that histography has been modified.

We would need the source of the Time to judge this.

In Righteous Victims, Benny Morris clearly explains that the murder lead provoked the british decision to arrest all arab leaders.

I don't think the issue of "how many times a specific word apear in teh lead warnts any further discussion" We will use WP:Lead and follow WP style and will end up with what ever we end up. Anyone who starts counting how many times the word "nazi" apear in an article might have a problem because that word may fit some articles more than others. Zeq 14:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I find the arguments here surprising. Isn't it true that Wikipedia's guiding principle is NEUTRALITY? Obviously, this means that a reader should not be able to tell if an article is written by friends or opponents of any person, party or movement. And this is not really the impression one is getting here.

A question to Zeq: Do you really believe that the zionist movement did not want to establish a Jewish state? Or are you saying that al-Husayni did not oppose this? If the answer to both questions is 'no', then what is the relevance of the wording of the 1917 Balfour Declaration? Paul kuiper NL 15:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality means that if there are conflicting views both should be represneted. Zeq 15:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"A question to Zeq: Do you really believe that the zionist movement did not want to establish a Jewish state? "

The Zionist movement is secular movment. It wanted ot establish a "national homeland for the Jewish people" . I wonder how many more times in this discussion I have to refer people to the text of the orginal Balfour Declaration of 1917 which show exactly what the Zionist movemnet wanted - it is in the declartion in simple English.

Is it too much to ask that people will make themself familiar with the background of the subject or the discussion here ?

"are you saying that al-Husayni did not oppose this? "

Hussenein opposed creating a "national homeland for the Jewish people" in palestine.

"If the answer to both questions is 'no', then what is the relevance of the wording of the 1917 Balfour Declaration?"

Why did you ask your last question in double negation in a way that no person can give you a simple yes/no answer ? I am not in court of law and I can expect that you make an effort to be clear and know the subject matter and the relavncy of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 to the subject. Zeq 15:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

► Dear Zeq, I am afraid that you are not well-informed. The Balfour Declaration was not the programme of the Zionist movement, it was a letter by the British Foreign Minister to Lord Rothschild. The objective of the Zionist movement was: establishing a Jewish state. Herzl stated this clearly from the beginning (the title of his book was: 'The Jewish State'), and we all know that the Jewish state WAS established in 1948. This is what the zionists wanted, and what al-Husayni opposed. The Balfour Declaration is of course of some historical importance, but here it has obviously no relevance at all. You'd better come to terms with this simple reality. Paul kuiper NL 18:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• You don't expect me to argue history with you when the 1917 text is so clear - read it, it speaks of what the zionist goals are: Balfour_Declaration_of_1917#Text_of_the_declaration. your 1948 argument is irelevant to events that took place immidetly after 1918 (the start of the Mufti career) Zeq 19:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• and here is a quote from a latter the Mufti wrote to the Germans asking them to elminate the "Jewish national homeland in Palestine" [21] Zeq 19:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• everytime those objections are arised I search and find even better sources - so now for his own words : [22]

I think thse sources establish a much stronger and clear lead to what the Mufti goals were and with whom he went to bed with to accomplish them....Zeq 19:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq. I answered you above *before* your tried to force your choice but you unfortunately didn't answer there.

Alithien 07:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien, what you wrote here: "Husseini and Arab leaders were not opposed that Palestine would become a "homeland for the Jewish People" (in an Arab state) but they were opposed to massive immigration (later to any immigration) and to a Jewish state on what they considered "Arab lands". " is your own OR. There is no source that supports that. In fact there is clear evidence, in the Mufti own words - such as his letter to the Germans - that he opposed any ""homeland for the Jewish People" in Palestine. Further more the words ""homeland for the Jewish People" and "Jewish state" are mostly sysnonymous (except that the term "Jewish state" is confusing since one can not know if this is a state for the jewish religion or a state for the Jewish people. The goals of zionism have always been a state/homeland for the Jewish people and this is what the balfour declartion is all about and this is what Husseieni objected.

presonall note: I can understand his objection - he feared that such a homeland might deprive the Arabs from rights they claim their ownand would intreduce a non-Islamic rule on lands they consider islamic. Nowhere did I see (so far) that he had anything against the Jewish religion as a religion (as long as people practicing it act as Dhimmis in a mulsim control state. He did object Zionism and establshing a homeland for the Jewish people. Zeq 12:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No this is not my personnal OR.

The fact is that I cannot each time somebody finds an article from an "anedoctical scholar" goes back in the litterature to find counter arguments and quotes.

If I find 2 extremely well known scholars who talks about jewish state in this context will you stop there ?

You didn't answer me : what is the difference in your eyes between a jewish state (which is what wanted the Zionism) and a homeland of the jewish nation ? Alithien 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

1937 escape

• Why did you [23] wrote in the lead that he was "exiled" while the article text is clear: he had an arrest warrent and escaped to avoid arrest. Zeq 12:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a mistake from my side. It should be corrected.

This is due to the fact that I read that he was allowed to go back from exile in 1947.

I suggest we write :

"When British arrested all palestinian leaders in 1937, he escaped to Lebanon".

Alithien 12:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should we write something that is a) not 100% true and b) partially irelevent ? Zeq 15:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It is relevant to understand how/why he left Palestine to Germany.

What would you suggest we write directly related to this ? Alithien 16:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The facts are already in the article. We should apply WP:Lead to these facts and enhance the kead - here is a suggestion: [24] . Zeq 16:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

So you added : "He was declared "wanted" by the British and fled the country in October of 1937"

What do you think about :

"In 1937, when British wanted all the Palestinian leaders who participated to the revolt, he fled the country."

Alithien 20:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is about him, I don't see how that is relavent. He was wanted, he was the main figure we should just say that. Zeq 21:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, let's just write "In 1937, he fled the country to Lebanon". Alithien 11:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And leave out why he fled ? wnad what he did later ? and what he did in lebanon (where he fled too) ?

How about:

In 1937, following the murder of the British Commissioner, the Mufti was declared "wanted" by the British and fled the country to Lebanon. Two years later, he fled from Lebanon to Iraq - where he orgenized an coup against the British. 89.1.190.78 13:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

He was not wanted because he would have organised the murder of the British Commissioner of Galilee.

He was wanted with all the other palestinian leaders.

And I think he fled in 1937 and not 1939, am I wrong ?

If we don't write why he was wanted I don't why we would write why he fled.

More he didn't organize anything in 1941.

And I also think this lead must be short.

I think : "He left Palestine in 1937 and collaborated with ..." is enough so that reader understand that he was any more in Palestine.

Alithien 13:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's try what does Time magazine say:

"In 1937, after a murder, he was wafted out of Palestine, where a warrant still exists for his arrest. During the war, he was accused of trafficking with Hitler and Mussolini, of fomenting the Iraq revolt of 1941, and of urging on Germany a systematic policy of exterminating Jews."

Or do you want a "sofetr" version in which we drop the murder but add the other leaders: "In 1937 the Mufti and other Muslims leaders of the revolt were declared "wanted" by the British for their role in the revolt. The Mufti fled the country to Lebanon. Two years later, he fled from Lebanon to Iraq - where he orgenized an coup against the British." [25]

maybe we can combine the two:

"In 1937 the Mufti and other Muslims leaders of the revolt were declared "wanted" by the British for their role in the revolt. The Mufti fled the country to Lebanon. Two years later, he fled from Lebanon to Iraq - where he fled after the failure of an pro-Nazi coup - to Iran before ending up in Europe - colborating with Hitler and Mussolini, and urging the Nazi leadership for a systematic policy of exterminating the Jews." Zeq 13:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq 13:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion of jewish state. Because I don't agree any "coup de force".

The Time is not relevant when scholar learns us that histography has been modified.

We would need the source of the Time to judge this.

In Righteous Victims, Benny Morris clearly explains that the murder lead provoked the british decision to arrest all arab leaders.

There is no reason so that the word nazi appears more than once in the lead. It is currently there and explains he collaborared with the Nazi.

The lead is a synthesis. We don't write the article once again.

Alithien 14:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC

RFC template corrected to use actual section name. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 01:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC Comment

While the RFC is specifically about the lead of this article, I would like to point out an issue that should be of concern to both parties in this disagreement: While the article quotes many people about what they thought of the Mufti, al-Husayni is himself never quoted. The only POV relevant to this article is the POV of al-Husayni, and it is never represented. From the little I know of the man, I know that he spoke extensively, was never reticent or apologetic about saying what he thought, and would certainly want any biographical article about him to use his own words as much as possible. Was he antisemitic, or only anti-Zionist? Let the man speak for himself, and let the readers decide.

I personally have a problem with the term "antisemitic". I know that in common usage it has come to mean anti-Jewish, but in this context I find it odd, since al-Husayni was first and foremost a Semite.

• note by Zeq: The fact that Arabs are semit has nothing to do with the term "anti-semite". Antisemitic is being against the jews. Was Husseinin against the jews ? I think the answer is self evident. Zeq 12:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand from reading the talk page that there was a dispute over use of a photograph of the Mufti in Germany. The issue was whether the use of the photo in this article was justified under the "fair use" rule. I just want to point out that fair use is not an issue - the photo is over 50 years old, so is in the public domain and can be used freely. See Wikipedia:Copyright situations by country. If you want to undelete the photo, you can ask an admin to do so, but it might be simpler to upload it again and use the correct copyright tag. (Whether it is germaine to the article is another question, which you editors must battle out on your own.)

Having carried on about everything except the question at hand, I would say this about the introduction. Regardless of what al-Husayni's views were, Israelis and historically-informed Jews worldwide regard him as the embodiment of anti-Jewish sentiment and Arab-Nazi collaboration. Regardless of the accuracy of that perception, I think that that notoriety in itself is worthy of reference in the introduction.

--Ravpapa 08:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the photo is in the public domain. Any search http://images.google.com/images?num=100&hl=en&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-06,RNWE:en&resnum=0&q=mufti%20%20hitler&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi will find it freely available. Just one more way in which people try to wikilayer to prevent this article to give true representation of who the mufti was : An Nazi colaboratot and inciter who is regarded by many today as a great fighter for Arab freedom. (both POV are in this case true and should be represneted in the article)

As for the Mufti own words - How about "Kill the jews" ? would this be OK to put it into the article ? (he made the call prior to the 1948 war) Zeq 12:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

More quotes from the British report

It was very difficult to believe that, in spite of its own doubts, to which M. Van Rees had just referred, and despite the delicate manner in which those doubts had been expressed, the Commission had been able to conclude that there had been no premeditation or organisation of the disturbances on the part of the Arab leaders. It was even more surprising that the Commission should have extended this conclusion to cover the Head of the Supreme Moslem Council, the Grand Mufti Haj Amin El Husseini, referred to in several quarters as one of the principal organisers of these disturbances.

On page 71 of its report, the Commission stated that the Mufti had been implicated in the troubles which had occurred in the month of April 1920. The accused had been condemned in his absence by the Military Court to a very severe term of imprisonment. The Commission also quoted a letter dated August 22nd, 1929, on page 75 of its report inciting the Arabs in unequivocable terms to take part in the attacks on the Jews which were to begin on the following day. The Commission observed in this connection (page 76) that this incitement to attack the Jews had been wrongly attributed to the Mufti. It had confined itself, however, to that declaration and had refrained from stating whether the origin of the letter quoted had been made the object of serious enquiry.

On the other hand, the Commission noted on page 77 that the Mufti had not scrupled to bear false witness. The Commission, however, had drawn no conclusion from this.

Account should also be taken of two facts which M. Van Rees thought particularly significant.

According to a secret letter from the Chief of Police at Jerusalem dated August 23rd, 1929, a facsimile of which had been forwarded to the Permanent Mandates Commission,3/ a black list had been drawn up as a result of a conference of police officials held on July 2nd, that was to say, a little before the outbreak of the disturbance. The first name on that list was that of Haj Amin El Husseini, the Grand Mufti.

In the British Parliament, the attention of the Government had been drawn to the fact that the Mufti had, on April 17th, 1930, sent a letter to his colleague Sheikh Mustapha Ghalaïni, President of the Moslem Council at Beirut, urging him to incite the Arabs in Syria to rebel against the French authorities. Zeq 12:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien - stop the reverts

Your last revert interduced a link to a propeganda organization (www.antiwar.com) which is not a WP:RS. I have removed it.

also: You have ask for a reason to an edit I provided a reply. since that time what you wrote (in French) is unclear at best.

Finish the discussion. Once you undestand me and I understand you we can discuss what to put in the article. So far you have not made a reply on talk which can be understood. Please make an effort to explain your objection about the text without using metaphors in French. I suggest you read Balfour_Declaration_of_1917 before you continue to push the "jewish state" issue. Husseieni was against the national homeland for the jews. This is very clear from his history. His emergence into the political public areana started right after the 1918 Decalration. Zeq 16:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not me who introduced antiwar link. I just reverted you. If you stop to try to force your mind and we finish the discussion, there would be no problem. You did right to remove that link. You still haven't answered my questions and so I will go on reverting you. Alithien 16:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Like my previous timeout that tried to avoid edit war and let you decide how to change the lead, this time I am staying away from the dispute and giving you the opposrtunity to self revert. Please make sure you edit according to wikipedia policies and review the various sources pointed out - they are very clear. Zeq 04:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I will not self revert. What we want to modify in the lead must be discussed and we must find a compromise before anybody modify this. Alithien 16:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly (see here:[26] - it was you who interduced the propeganda source: www.antiwar.com) Don't do that again - this is a violation of WP:RS.

The one trying to force things is you as you have revrted any change to any section that was made to this article by several editors. I suggest you reconsider your behaviour. Zeq 16:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Here is the truth

2. Here is the mediation result you want to break

Given your attitude, we will go on this discussion in 1 week.

Alithien 10:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated above, there are new sources that came after the mediation and we should take them into account. Zeq 13:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View, please!

This debate is more and and more surprising. To any unbiased reader, it seems obvious that the whole article is heavily biased. There is an apparent desire by some of the contributors to portray the Mufti as negative as possible, and there is certainly not a balanced accounting of facts.

For instance, it seems incomprehensible that the Mufti's alleged connections with Eichmann are just stated as facts here, while there is no mentioning of the fact (quoted above) that the famous Jewish scholar Hannah Arendt, who attended the complete Eichmann trial, concluded in her book 'Eichmann in Jeruzalem': "The trial revealed only that all rumors about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin El Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded". ('Eichmann in Jeruzalem', 1994, p. 13). The formula of Wikipedia is: Neutral Point of View. This is not exactly observed in this article! Paul kuiper NL 19:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There are newer sources than came about after 1961 (the trial after all was about Eichman not about the Mufti).

In thse new sources his role in formulating or contrubuting to Nazi actions is very clear.

We must take into account what the comeplete set of sources (available to us now) say. We can not stop at what was the state of the art circa 1961. that is nearly 50 years ago. Zeq 21:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I get very much the same impression. "Mufti" means "advisor to a Sharia court", a trivial title given to him by the British with no influence over anything the administration concerned themselves with. The Muftis power was choosing teachers in Islamic schools, his budget was the payroll of the same teachers - perhaps their gratefulness extended to letting him use the Gestetner to run off leaflets. Morris says the British gave him money (not very much, by the sound of it) while the Zionist agencies paid off the Nashashbibis, his real historic enemies. Neither side had any powers to raise taxes - quite unlike the immigrants, who'd been granted this vital function under Samuel when they were 10% of the population. PR^talk 20:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"the Nashashbibis, his real historic enemies" - what do you mean and what did the Zionists pay them ? Zeq 21:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Need section name-change.

I've added material to "Mufti role in creating anti-Jewish feeling among the Arabs" which makes it clear that the mufti was not on some kind of unreasonable campaign to deprive others of the use of the Western Wall, but that there was a long-standing problem. What I've not done is change the name of this section, which is clearly prejudicial, and has no place in the guy's bio. PR^talk 19:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have put a new section name on top of my latest conribution. Paul kuiper NL 20:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The name is accurate and describe what he did. I suggest you review sources before you change section name. I have also removed part of a section that is unrelevant to the Mufti (see WP:Undue ) Zeq 21:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not what my book says - which is that all the Holy places were targetted by the immigrants (as they had been for at least 7 years) and gangs with batons seized the Western Wall. The mufti was generally very ineffective - but on this occasion, he was able to stop the theft. PR^talk 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Which Book - is it a WP:RS and it is relevant ? if so bring it inmto the article - as long as it discuss the Mufti.

As for the section you have re-added: It does not discuss the Mufti. Since you brought it in order to contredict a view by a source you are really offering your own OR. ( a source sais one thing and you bring facts which you claim contradict the source. This is not how Wikipedia works. You need to find a source which contradict the first source - not your own interpretation of the fact.) I am sure you can dig and find a WP:RS that will claim what you are trying to show so please don't take the OR short-cut. Zeq 07:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The OR is the absurd title of this section "Mufti role in creating anti-Jewish feeling among the Arabs". There were real problems over the Holy Places, they'd been reached international attention 7 years before 1929 and were triggered by violent attempts to seize control of the Western Wall in particular. That's what the RSs say, and that's what needs to appear in the article. PR^talk 08:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No it is not an absured title. It is a description taken from that time, froma comitee which investigated what the Mufti was doing. Everything you say was surly known to the sources that investigated the issues at that time and they were much closer to the subject than you. I suggest you read the sources.

btw, Your description of "violent attempts to seize control of the Western Wall" is pure propeganda and is unrealted to what the mufti was doing except in (maybe) one connection: If you find that the Mufti made that claim than we know how this false rumor started: By the Mufti himself. Zeq 10:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What in this section is about the Mufti (other than the words "Mufti-inspired disturbances" ? :

"Benny Morris documents the frequent anxieties, in propaganda and formal petititons to the authorities, expressed by Arabs over a possible loss of their traditional rights over the Wall to Jews whose claims and innovations were seen as challenging those rights. In 1922 the Palestinian delegation to Mecca during the hajj had declared: 'the Holy Places are in great danger on account of the horrible Zionist aggressions'. On September 23-24, 1928 the Supreme Muslim Council complained about the setting up of a screen at the Wailing (or Western) Wall to separate men and women. The Mandatory constabulary used force to protect the ownership rights of Muslims over the Wall and the adjacent passage used by the Jews, but there was increasing pressure from 'Right-wing Zionists' to take control of the Wall. On August 14, 1929, a demonstration of some 6,000 Jews in Tel Aviv, chanted 'The Wall is ours'. That evening, 3,000 gathered at the Wall for prayer. The following day, 100s of Jews - including members of the extremist Betar movement - demonstrated at the wall with batons. The mufti-inspired disturbances shook Britain's commitment to the Balfour Declaration, but by early 1931 well-applied Zionist pressure in the press and lobbying by Chaim Weizmann in London had rescued the status quo ante."

 ?? Zeq 12:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The RS sources originally exonerated Husseini from any blame eg Shaw report: "...in the matter of innovations of practice [at the Wailing Wall] little blame can be attached to the Mufti in which some Jewish religious authorities also would not have to share. ...no connection has been established between the Mufti and the work of those who either are known or are thought to have engaged in agitation or incitement. ... After the disturbances had broken out the Mufti co-operated with the Government in their efforts both to restore peace and to prevent the extension of disorder.".

Our WP article (and the ethnic cleansing supporter Morris) tell us that later researchers think he did inspire some of the rioting - but not for the purposes claimed "of creating anti-Jewish feeling" as is in our account. And the references we have for this are hate-speech nonsense "Hitler’s Mufti: The Dark Legacy of Haj Amin al-Husseini".

The obvious and correct thing to do is take an ax to this article and chop out everything that's not properly referenced - which is most of it. PR^talk 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

More and more serious problems with this article

I'm finding more and more really serious problems with this article, eg [[27]], where we're using weasel words to blame Husseini for what went on, eg "a minority report (Mr. Snell , page 174 of the report) asserted far more involvement on the Mufti's part saying: "I have not the least doubt that he was aware of the nature of that campaign and that he realised the danger of disturbances which is never absent when religious propaganda of an exciting character is spread among a Moslem people.")

And we're using a completely unreferenced accusation that he was carrying an anti-semitic book (policy says "take it out"), and after that it gets even more confused - the "later 1937 British re-investigation" is linked to the 1930 report. I can't be sure what's going on here, but the obvious solution is to chop out most of it as being worthless. PR^talk 08:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding of non relevant data.

Recent edit include editions such as this - which has nothing to do with the suebject of this article:

"several members of which were themselves feeling out the Nazis in Beirut about a possible collaboration between the Jewish underground and Germany to throw the British out of Palestine"

I again point out to PR and others that while you may want to bring facts which according to your OR contrdaict sources you need to bring relevant source and/or sources that contradict the relavent sources already in the article.

• Let me explain it specifically:

If a source sais Husseini is a nazi colaborator the option you have are:

1. bring a source that sais that "he was not a nazi colaborator"
2. there is no number 2

To add data that said that members of a Jewish organization were also nazi colaborator is very welcome - butin the article about that group - not here. I hope that is clear. I understand how much discomfort the Mufti to some but what can we do: He is regarded is hero by some (you should add that to the article) but he also did things which today look very bad. There is really no point trying to hide them or show that "others are also bad...". Zeq 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You are abusing WP:Undue Weight all over this page, because while no one disputes the Nazi connection, and it ought to have some weight, it cannot constitute half of the article, no more than the fact that the Stern Gang's members, many of whom militated with the larger Irgun, men such as Shamir, who rose to be Prime Minister, need have their wiki biographies cluttered up noisily with the fact that, at one point, that fringe group endeavoured to woo Nazi assistance, on the eve of the Holocaust, so that a joint Jewish-Nazi military collaboration might overthrow the British in Palestine. On the Yitzhak Shamir page, this fact has the weight due to it. A line or two. What you appear to be trying to do is smear by association, confusing Amin Husseyni's trafficking with the Nazis, while out of power with the natural resistance among Palestinians to having their native land sold out from under their feet. The resentment and riots were sociologically inevitable, as many Jewish leaders are on record as attesting. Their land was to be given to a foreign community, by a third party. That is not to condone the violence that flared up, but your attempt to tar the Palestinians with the Nazi brush, via the figure of Husseini, and give the impression that indigenous resistance to an imperially-sanctioned takeover of their land was little more than antisemitic or Nazism, is sleazy.Nishidani 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep out focus. This is the Husseini article - lets discuss Husseieni.

For the Stern-gand, Shamir - there are other articles which are unrelated to what we do here.

Can you re-edit your comment to the relevant issues to this article (and btw, always WP:AGF - I don't "smear" or "abuse" - I edit according to policy. Please appologize on these accusations)) Zeq 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Will you please stop it with the apology demands? AGF is not a shield that needs to be ducked under at each and every turn; learn to just shrug some things off and focus on the issues at hand. Nishidani was making an analogy, point out how other articles deal with people with controversial pasts and issues. The point is that al-Husseini's life and history are not 100% defined by charges of anti-semitism/zionism or of contacts with Nazis. There has to be a balance, and you continuously trying to put all of this stuff in is upsetting that undue weight balance. Tarc 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for focusing on Husseieni in your comment. I 100% agree with you. We need to represent his life as they were and as WP:RS sources describe him and do it in an NPOV manner (present both sides) maybe you can add the data how he is viwed as a hero by many ? Zeq 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq careful! You have now insinuated twice that those who contest your desire to monopolize the writing of this page are in fact trying to support Husseini, the Nazi. The fact that you are prepossessed by the desire to make a grotesque figure even more grotesque does not mean that those who would rein in your exuberant discursive elephantiasis on the Nazi-Palestine connection view him, contrariwise as a hero. They simply dislike pages mauled by incompetent monomania. In the meantime, I would suggest we begin to boil down to a précis-paraphrase the passages from white papers et al cited in extenso. That is pure padding, and boring to boot.Nishidani 17:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I made no such claim - all I suggested is that the POV of Mufti supporters will be added to the article. I did not say anything about any editor. Please appologize for making a false claim on me or support it with facts. the rest of your note is above my level of unerstanding. On the other hand you have removed sourced info - why ? Zeq 18:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your characterization of others as "Mufti supporters" needs to cease. Now. Tarc 18:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarc, I did not charterized any wikiepdia editor as "mufti supporter" . There are those(not wkipedia editors) who supported what he was trying to do and there are those (not wkipedia editotrs) who see him as a hero of Arab Freedom. It is only fair that their POV will be presented in this article. This man was an important leader - surly many saw him in positive light (during his life time and after) their views must be present. That is NPOV. As for your "need to cease now" - I suggest you stop giving orders around here. Please be polite with other editors. Zeq 18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps as your bad grammar indicates, you do not understand what your words in English mean. In writing, in the midst of a dispute with other editors objecting to your unilateral manner here, you remarked: 'I understand how much discomfort the Mufti to some but what can we do'. Corrected by supplying the verb this sentence lacks, it means, unambiguously, in context, that your work detailing the Mufti's Nazi connections causes 'discomfort' to some (implicitly 'in here'). Get your grammatical act together, and these accusations, if unintentional, will disappear. Until then, you are on the record as asserting that others in here are 'discomforted' by the evidence you present, and thus support a writing cleansed of this otherwise well-attested nexus between Al Husseini and Nazism.Nishidani 18:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there is great discomfort on this talk page that goes both ways - it is dealing with this subject (a Mufti which was reagrded as hero and turn out to be Nazi supporter) that cause discomfort (for me as well) as for my english i would agree that this: "rein in your exuberant discursive elephantiasis " is above my grade but I will look it up later when I have more time.Zeq 18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The discomfort is with your editing, not with the subject matter. Israel regards several known terrorists, who had deep connections with Fascism (Jabotinsky), and slighter contacts with Nazis (Avraham Stern), as national heroes. Shamir was directly responsible for killing Lord Moyne and Bernadotte, Begin had a hand in the attempt to assassinate Konrad Adenauer (actually his reasons for that act are quite understandable, he wanted the German reparations to go to the victims and not to the goverment of Israel). Many rabbis dealt with the Nazis, sending poorer Jews and Jewish communists off to the crematoria, where Jewish inmate slang called the victims who were condemned to the 'bakery' because unable to work anymore, 'Moslems', all this in exchange for their own and their family and friends' lives. Both became PM, one received the Nobel Prize for Peace. Stern was honoured with a memorial day, attended by senior government and military figures every year. Netanyahu, Livni, Olmert, to name but a few, all hail from an milieu connected with Irgun terrorism. So, just as this kind of information does not invalidate Jewish claims to a national home, neither does Amin Husseini's fanaticism, admired as it was by many Palestinians and Arabs who knew little of the Holocaust (had they that intention, as opposed to rhetoric, why is it that, compared to Europe, no Holocaust occurred in Arab countries?), in any way invalidate the Palestinians' vigorous opposition to what struck them as an expropriation of their homeland by foreigners. Your inability to understand this, and the monocular attention to this figure and connection as if he represented the smoking gun to prove a connivance between Palestinian indigenous claims to nationhood and Nazism, document the powerful POV governing yours edits. You lack proportion and equanimity Nishidani 19:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I find your accusations of what Rabbies did in the holocaust irelevent and highly insulting. You have no idea what people went through so don't judge them. It seems that your sources of information on the subject of the holocaust is how can I put it mildly - somewhat lacking. All in all, your contribution ehre is cerating an environment that is way past the wikipedia spirit and may in fact be against ikipedia policy by making comments which are insulting to other users. No rabbi called any one 'Moslems' as a ephitet like you try to claim - where did you got that idea. can you prove what you are arguing above. You know what I don't care where you got it from - it is irelevant - we are not editing an artyicle about Stern or about any Rabbi. personal note: I disagree completly with the political tradtion that stern represent and there are also many rbbis I disagree with - all this is irelevant as well. Focus on the subject of this article. Zeq 19:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You write:'can you prove what you are arguing above(?)'

Of course, and the fact that you are unaware of this is proof you read too much on an obscure mufti idiot, and not enough on the history of the Holocaust, or Zionist follies. See Raul Hilberg, Primo Levi, and Lenni Brenner, just for starters. I won't give you the page numbers, because people who want that information ought to earn it, and people who might abuse it, should not have their antisemitism buttressed by facile access to someone's hard-earned notes. Nishidani 20:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

what do you mean by "someone's hard-earned notes" ? I asked you to prove a claim you make and you are avoiding it ? why ? Zeq 20:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I claimed 'Moslem' was the word in Nazis concentration camps for people selected, from their exhaustion, for the next cremation in the 'bakery'. You doubt it? 'Era comune a tutti i Lager il termine Muselmann, 'mussulmano', attribuito al prigioniero irreversibilmente esausto, estenuato, prossimo alla morte.' Primo Levi, I sommersi e i salvati, in Primo Levi Opere, vol.1, Einaudi, 1987 p.729. As for the rest, it's well known, and hardly needs my files to document. But if you want, read Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews(1961) or the revised edition, even better.Nishidani 20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this what you refer to as "someone's hard-earned notes" - i.e. are those your notes ? Why was it so hard to share them ? (I don't speak Italian but I will look for translation) or maybe you would make it easy for me and point me to one ?Zeq 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You missed the point. Levi's books on the camps count among the masterpieces of world literature, and I would translate, but prefer that you read the man, in English or Hebrew. He was one of the great spirits of the age, and rewards every reader, because he can look the obscenity of horror in the face, without raising his voice, or clotting his prose with emotive language for rhetorical effect, and that is the most effective way to unhinge the disbeliever or antisemite. Of course, I was speaking of my notes.Nishidani 21:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So you did not want to give me "access" to your notes ? You wanted me to 'earn it' ? Zeq 22:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal. Too many editors skim the net for info that might help their cause. The net is an inferior source of information, since much is highly POV. The best source of information is the relevant historical scholarship. That scholarship is in books, in libraries. Hence, if you want to know the state of the art of a subject, go to a library, and don't surf the net. If we all did this, Wikipedia would be a RS, which it is not. It mainly reflects selective chat-battles among varied interests groups who work the net to influence public opinion.Nishidani 09:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.

I already suggested Zeq to buy books on the topic.

I think NPOV can only be reached in :

1. reading secondary sources from scholars of different pov's and the critics about their work

2. check ourselves as much as possible the primary sources on which they base their mind.

3. giving as fairly as possible DUE weight to all this material.

Alithien 09:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Another good source

The British Empire and the Second World War By Ashley Jackson - page 146.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xTKtPPEDTtQC&dq=the+british+empire+and+the+second+world+war+by+ashley+jackson&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=-w83HoJUYk&sig=zh8PyEA2ifMONBmv_0SBBgZmJ9Y

The Second World War By Winston Churchill - page 234

Zeq 19:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"The Balfour Declaration did not name Palestine as "the" Jewish national home. Instead, the Balfour Declaration only established "in" Palestine a national home for the Jewish people. It was endorsed by the principal Allied powers, and, through its acceptance by the Conference of San Remo in 192O, it became an instrument of British and international policy. The mandate had been officially interpreted in a statement of June 3, 1922, in which Winston Churchill, the British Colonial Secretary, announced that the declaration meant not the "imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews of other parts of the world, in order that it may become a center in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. " His Majesty's government, he announced, had not contemplated at any time, as appeared to be feared by the Arabs, "the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine." On July 24, 1922, the League of Nations approved the British mandate over Palestine that included the Balfour Declaration in the preamble and various provisions dealing with facilitating Jewish immigration and stressing the Jewish historical connection with Palestine. The mandate gave Britain the power to alter the provisions of the mandate regarding the area east of the Jordan River, and on Sept. 22, 1922, the British officially announced that the Balfour Declaration would not apply to the area east of the Jordan, about 75 percent of the total area. This area was closed to Jewish immigration. " Zeq 11:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Uri Avnery

Re User:Armon's edit. This is getting quite comical. Uri Avnery, a German Jew whose family was chased out of his homeland by Nazis, who then militated with the Irgun, later recanted, became a member of the Knesset, is not a 'reliable source', while all over these pages, Shmuel Katz, who, emigrating from South Africa, militated with the Irgun, didn't recant, and became a member of the Knesset, is taken as an impeccable source. It's the first time I've encountered the idea that if a peace activist not RS, if an extreme pro-Zionist, RS. Go figure.Nishidani 10:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

antiwar.com is a proeganda web site and not a WO:RS source. Armon is correct. Zeq 11:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No it is not a propaganda website. Nor is a former member of the Knesset an Unreliable Source. I don't care either way, that much but think editors here should be rather more careful of their sources. I have just removed this one.[28]Nishidani 13:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Who put that in? adelaideinstitute is a holocaust denial site! The irony is, the actual article they reprinted (and were complaining about) was from a reliable source -see the proper cite: Hitler’s Mufti by David G. Dalin a professor of history and political science in First Things. <<-armon->> 14:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:RS please and at that point we will continue the discussion. Zeq 13:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:RS, and note that citing material written by members of Israel's Knesset is perfectly innocuous. Nishidani 13:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing there about the Knesset. I am sure I can find some other things that Knesset mebers said along the years that are wrong so being a member of knesset does not qualify for good or bad. it is meanigless for WP:RS. It seems that you still have not read it since it talkes about the place where things are published and not about who is the speaker that sais them Zeq 13:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually Nishidani, you should read WP:RS and perhaps try and avoid dubious highly POV sources like Antiwar.com and Lenni Brenner and use historians for history. Benny Morris was OK, but you were using him to comment on Zionists, not the subject. NPOV requires that we clean up the apologia. <<-armon->> 13:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually <<-armon->> you should read the sources, and not just the pages. You have eliminated evidence from Walter Laqueur, Benny Morris, and Lenni Brenner, not to speak of Uri Avnery, simply because you dislike the evidence. Laqueur is an impeccable source, as in Benny Morris, and your only option there is to edit the prose. Otherwise what you are doing is removing material from RS because you dislike it. Your remark n Morris is incmprehensible. Morris, if you know the book, is dealing directly with the incidents the article describes, and if one of Israel's finest historians judges the situation that way, you have to accept it as a reasonable reference. It is not a violation of NPOV to cite an historian. It is a violation of NPOV to censor a conclusion by a nted historian because you personally dislike that historian's conclusion. What is there is not an 'apologia'. It is a paraphrase of what Morris wrote. So edit the language, not the analysis. As for Brenner, you apparently don't know that when the said book came out, in 1984, it got good publishing notices, in The Times of London and elsewhere. Your edit on him reflects a dislike of his approach, personal distaste for his private views. If Joseph Schlechtman, or Shmuel Katz can be quoted all over these pages, so can Brenner.

As for Avnery you didn't even check, this second time round, evidently. Gush Shalom, which is where the new source for Avnery's remark, is a RS for Avnery's views. You didn't check and repeated the censure, thinking it was from antiwar.com, proof you don't read what you edit out. Nishidani 14:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Avnery is not a historian and neither is Brenner, they are fringey activists. If you want an "impeccable source" you wouldn't use them -that is, unless you want to push pov. As for Morris, the article is about the mufti, the section is about his incitement of the 1929 Palestine riots. The passage in which you were soapboxing Morris didn't deal with that, instead, it was an attempt to provide exculpatory evidence. It may have been sourced, but it was distorted and off topic. <<-armon->> 15:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You can have Anvery, which I never put in in any case, just as I didn't put in the passage by Morris, and therefore accusing me of 'soapboxing Morris' is, as is now a commonplace with you, off the mark. Morris reviews on those pages the incident dealt with, and is not 'exculpatory' in any other sense than that a later historian, dealing with archives, discovers that the simplistic one-sided POV-ridden view of history of the kind driving this page, is not so simple. He cited a wave of events, as does Laqueur. Don't take up your complaints with me or Brenner (favourably reviewed by historians at the time and still considered reliable). Take them up with Laqueur. The only motivation I can discern is you want Laqueur's reference to 'Doar Hayom' off the page, because that reference shows that at least some Jabotinsky publicists were writing, in Hebrew, for Jews in Palestine, articles claiming rights to all of the wall. Laqueur says this is part of the record, and if you dislike it, drop him a line and protest.Nishidani 15:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So there's evidence that al-Husayni could read Hebrew and saw that article? If I remove something which is off-topic, and used as apologia (Morris doesn't actually dispute his role in the incitement), and you repeatedly put it back in, then as far as I'm concerned, it's "yours". <<-armon->> 22:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A note

In case the tag-team gambit on getting me to violate the 3RR works, this for the record. I was interrupted by circumstances from finishing my final edit here. It should run:

On August 14th, 1929 some 6,000 Jews marched in Tel Aviv, chanting The Wall is ours, and prayers by half that number were made at the wall that night. a Betar demonstration followed the next day, and heated rumours raced round the Arab community to the effect that the haram itself was in danger. Al Hussayni's activists stoked the flames enjoining them to attack Jews and defend the holy sites. He refused to accept official Jewish assurances that these areas were in their sights, and in the escalating tensions, with the parts of the Arab community inflamed by rumours that the Jews did indeed wish to take possession of the Mosque of Omar, the notorious massacres took place. In reviewing these events, and their analysis in the Shaw Report, a decade after this complex set of charges and counter-charges, the Mandates Commission concluded that al-Husayni’s accusations had exacerbated Arab hostilities.Nishidani 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

what is this ?

"He rused to accept official Jewish assurances that these areas were in their sights, " Zeq 18:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Still does not make any sense "He refused to accept official Jewish assurances that these areas were in their sights, and in the escalating tensions, with the parts of the Arab community inflamed by rumours that the Jews did indeed wish to take possession of the Mosque of Omar, the notorious massacres took place." Zeq 19:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

'He refused to accept official Jewish assurances that they did not aspire to take over the area.'

The error is my fault. I broke off my edit due to visiters knocking at my door, like Coleridge with the gentleman from Porlock.Nishidani 19:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Mufti's role in the 1929 Palestine riots

"At the time, his role was hotly disputed". -it's not now. We need to keep that clear. <<-armon->> 22:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

KEY Key document

This is a key document for this article: [29] I recomnd everyone to read it (including those who might prefer to find it in book format and not just on the net). I reveals new information onm the Mufti active role in trying to eliminate the "Jewish National home" in Palestine.

I also suggest that who keep reverting to "Jewish state instead of national home for the Jewish people will read a bit about the 1927 balfour declration and what was promised there. The terminlogy is clear. Zeq 04:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Your document is seriously distorted eg when it says "and Palestine under the British Mandate was regarded as one of the favorite destinations for refuge", when it was always the least favourite amongst the refugees themselves.

I've had to stop myself from saying more in case it appears like an attack on your participation and basic understanding of the events. PR^talk 23:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Both phrases redirect to the same article so why don't we just link directly to Homeland of the Jewish People and be done with it. <<-armon->> 00:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mufti legacy

We need to work more on this subject and on his infulance on current situation.

Here is a suggestion/source:

"The mufti soon became the recognized leader of the Palestinian movement. He had an ideological impact on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah; and he was implicated in planning the 1951 murder of King Abdullah of Jordan, who supported peace with Israel. Husseini also helped create the Palestinian Liberation Organization and played a large role in rejecting the UN Partition Plan, which would have created separate Arab and Jewish states in Mandatory Palestine.

Perhaps Husseini’s longest-lasting impact on Arab attitudes came in Egypt when he met Yasser Arafat. The younger man soon became a devoted protégé of the mufti. Arafat influenced Palestinian policy and tactics for decades. As Yossi Klein Halevi wrote in the National Catholic Reporter on the eve of Arafat’s death, Arafat “raised a generation of Palestinian children to see in suicide bombers religious and educational role models” and caused Holocaust denial to become “normative.” In 1985, Arafat said that the PLO was “continuing the path” that Husseini set, and in 2002, he called the mufti “our hero.” "[30]

We need to work on it more. Zeq 04:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The mufti is exclusively a religious authority. Here is Huneidi, Sahar "A Broken Trust, Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians". ISBN 1-86064-172-5, p.232: "By restricting the Palestinian Arab organization to religious affairs, Samuel prevented Arab leaders from exercising and developing their authority in the crucial political, economic and social fields. ... Conversely, to the Jewish community, which at that time constituted about 7 per cent of the population, Samuel offered wide powers of autonomy, including the power to levy taxes." PalestineRemembered (talk 15:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya right. Because of the British the Mufti was never a leader.....right on. This is minority POV which is not supported by the facts. Zeq 03:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Mufti is an advisor to a Sharia court, of no influence over the British whatsoever. He had the power to choose the teachers in religious schools and the budget that paid them - that's about it.

Meanwhile, the British appointed a high commissioner who immediately made Hebrew an official language, added "Israel" to the stamps, and gave Zionist agencies the power to raise taxes and form their own parallel administration. All this while they were just a tiny fraction of the population. British tax payers money went to build roads - but only between the new settlements.

All of this comes from the historical sources - I'm sure you're familiar with them. PR^talk 22:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish state" or did he object "national homeland for the Jewish people"

Mansfield News, 31 May 1919 DESCCENDENT OF MOHAMMED IS OPPOSED TO ZIONIST COMMONWEALTH

"The grand mufti of Palestine, descendent of Mohammed and head of all Moslems of Palestine, in a recent statement declared his opposition to a "Zionist commonwealth in the Holy Land. The mufti declared he is backed by a solid block of 500,000 Palestine Arabs, whose national aspirations are quite different their brethren of Hedjaz, Syria and of Egypt. Most of these Arabs, according to the Mufti, have studied English, almost all of them know French and they are a thinking and progressive people"

Zeq 05:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You make the guy sound over-tolerant towards "make Israel as Jewish as England is English". And you're still making it seem as if "Mufti" is some high title with political power or influence. It's not, it's an advisor to a Sharia court. PR^talk 14:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am getting impatiant with this "you" thing. All I brought above is a quote showing the Mufti objection to the Balfour declaration. On one hand you accuse me for doing that and in another place I am accused of hiding this fact. So you guys need to decide which is it: Am I trying to hide the Mufti objection to balfour or I am not. ?????

Likewise, I am not going to argue with you the Mufti riole as a palestinian leader. He was. He is a revreed figure and consdered a hero. There are still to this day (and there were before) many who are Mufti supporters - they are outthere in the real world (I am not talking about wikipedia here). The "Mufti supporters" in the real world have a valid POV - this wikipedia article should refelcet the view that he is a hero (in the eyes of some. He lead the foundations together withj Izz a din al-Kasam and Hassan Banna. Zeq 02:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien - stop the reverts (take 2)

Alithien - Please stop the reverts.

I know you think I am this monster. Try me. Discuss things with me which you think are wrong.

We are not going to discuss apreiri every small change but once an edit was made and you have objections: Please by all means, raise them and let's discuss. reverting will lead you no where - unless your wish is to freeze this article because it fits your POV.

So if all you want is to freeze the situation - you should continue to act as you did and revert endlessly - at that point the article will get protected and you get a "temporary" win.

But if you want cooperartion: Just raise your objections on talk page. I will listen and respond and hopefully we can reach a decision. Zeq 14:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq,

Sorry for that but

1. You are the one who started an edit war and who has been requested to discuss (8th times)

2. You are the one who went several times in front of the ArbCom and who has a past of "problematic" relations with other editors.

3. You are the one who regularly victimizes yourself seeing antisetism where it is not.

4. You are the one who does not have read enough material on these topics and who uses "google search on internet" or "1 article" as The Reference. You didn't read enough on the matter and didn't gather enough different pov's to be able to give information its due:weight.

No article fits my POV simply because I don't have any (eg. I still don't know if that guy was really antisemite or not; that is a crazy issue that would deserve a real specialist on the matter). The main problem in wikipedia comes from editors who misunderstands we do not "negociate" what should be in the article or "defend" a pov but that we only gathers all the "relevant" pov on a matter and give them their due weight.

Alithien 10:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Alitein,

I am always willing to discuss. Discussion is not "pre-aproval". If you want to edit - please edit, add/change what ever. This is the spirit of wkipedia. But....If you disgaree with someone else edit and you want to revert: At that point I suggest you raise your objection. I have done the same. Zeq 16:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien I'm afraid there is not much hope for this page for the two editors, Zeq and Armon have little historical understanding of the subject, and are exclusively concerned with 'framing' Al-Husayni's 1919-1929 behaviour, not as representative of the general Arab revolt against the Balfour Declaration (as the Mandatory Commission reviewing the Shaw Report intimated), but as simply an expression of 'anti-semitism'. He was definitely a Nazi-affiliated 'antisemite' later on. But the two editors, even working in tandem, have no grasp of the historical literature and we should perhaps let them go on destroying the page as far as they can with this puerile POV-pushing, and only intervene to restore some order and NPOV approach, when some relevant Wiki commission keeps Zeq off such pages for his incompetence and editing abuses. Best regards Nishidani 14:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I am not a source but i would like to see sources that frame Mufti behaviour as "general Arab revolt against the Balfour Declaration " - This is very important to this article. If you have such sources please bring them in. Thanks. Zeq 15:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"as the Mandatory Commission reviewing the Shaw Report intimated" Nishidani, if you want to present reliably sourced background information, rather than OR, by all means, do it. However, the place for it is in the 1929 Palestine riots article, not here. Here we are dealing with the Mufti's role in the events. Please stay on topic, and please avoid tantrums about other editors. <<-armon->> 00:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No tantrum, just impatience with incompetence, ignorance or laziness. I.e. your repeated restoration of this passage, and the link:-

Snell's opinion was, several years later, endorsed by a further British re-investigation, which considered the Mufti's innovations at the Wailing Wall doubly provocative, in aiming to both annoy the Jews, and to emphasize Muslim ownership of the site. It concluded that the Wailing Wall episodes constituted 'one of the principle immediate causes of those disturbances'

The reports deal with the Mufti's role, so it is not OR to refer to them. Indeed the rest of the text does. You both seem to be thoroughly confused. Nishidani 09:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about what your objection is -that much is true. Do you dispute that passage? If so, why? (The link needs to fixed -it's broken). <<-armon->> 12:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you in the simplest terms:-

(A)Snell's opinion is in the Shaw Report (1930)

(B) The Mandatory Commission report which revived Snell's claim was conducted in (1930)

(C)What further British re-investigation here alludes to is unknown. The several years later looks like it refers to the Peel Commission report published in 1937.

(D)The link to verify which of the two reports (B) (C) is being alluded to support the assertion in the passage does not work, though it appears to refer to (B). If it refers to B, then both the British Reinvestigation and several years later are false. If (C) then that is not linked, and it is not proven that (C) supports the claim in Snell's minority opinion. Q.E.D.Nishidani 13:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Every time you use "Q.E.D." this indicate an OR. we don't reach out own conclusions here - we bring other's view point. Zeq 13:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please try to learn English, to a level that will enable you not to consistently misread what other editors are saying and doing. I was asked a question, I replied to the question in logical form, involving no OR, but simply pointing out, in logical form, the error in a passage both you and Armon support. My comments are not original research, they are annotations on the incomprehensible sourcing and content of a passage on the page.(Q.E.D.). This is the third time you radically misunderstand simple statements in EnglishNishidani 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't confuse my spelling with my english... Anyhow when you say this: "simply pointing out...the error in a passage both you and Armon support" you show that misundertood not one but 2 wikipedia policies:

1. WP:AGF - I support nothing. I bring sources, that is all.
2. WP:OR - it is not your role to point out errors in sources. If you want write a book and we WILL quote you but here all that you and I can do is bring sources - even those we don't like. Zeq 14:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect you are simply doing this to waste other people's time. I am not pointing out errors in sources. The passage both you and Armon support, (please read the page you are both editing), is on the Wiki page: the remark I made does not refer to a source. If you understood English at an elementary level you would have seen this. I am pointing out errors on the page you and Armon support, on the Wiki page. I am noting to you both, secondly, that the source you both use(link 9) does not support the statements on that Wiki page. If I have to make it simpler than this, I must confess that I won't be able to. For I have no experience in teaching English as a second language at kindergarten level. I suppose if you persist, reluctantly, I will have to haul the evidence for your fatal inability to understand English before some Arbitrator. People who cannot understand primary school English should not be editing on the English Wiki. Were it not profoundly comical, this exchange would be supremely ridiculous Nishidani 15:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to "drag me to some arbitor" let me give you an advise: What you just wrote to me will not earn you any point and the accuser may find himself the accused. Why don't you be polite and civil instead of just trying to show that others don't understand what at your level you have already know. We are here to edit an encyclopedia not to belittle other people. I expect an appology for a start. Zeq 16:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of wasting other people's time. I like to keep my record clean of the endless jejeune whingeing for arbitration that mars this encyclopedia, and distracts editors from the work of writing for Wiki. I do not work on Wikipedia to cultivate friendships, but to collaborate with other competent and capable editors in writing quality articles. I haven't belittled anyone. I merely noted an objective fact, that you obviously do not understand English sufficiently to collaborate, since repeatedly you fail to understand quite simple statements by other editors. If you cannot understand other editors, you probably cannot understand the sources in English. I have no objection to you editing this page, as long as you try to read the sources you quote, and understand correctly what the editors you engage with are actually saying (as against what you suspect they might be saying), which so far I find no evidence for. Now, if you want to fix the many problems with this page, address my original question, and if you have difficulty, ask Armon to help you out, since he is a native speaker of English. The point is, as the text stands, the para. dealing with Snell's apparent vindication by another Commission is wrongly sourced, and defies the known facts. Both you and Armon have repeatedly reverted to that text. I have repeatedly shown you why that text is defective on two counts, and instead of addressing the question you try to drag me into a civility debate. Civil manners consist in listening attentively to what other people say. Not in jumping at any opportunity to transform a legitimate objection into a personal dispute. You are both responsible for a defective text, and therefore should fix it. If you do, I will take that as a sign of good faith.Nishidani 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I will fix everything needed. This section in talk is just to ask Alithein to stop reverting any effort we make. Once the reverts quiet down I will fix what ever need to be fixed. Zeq 18:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's not personalize this. Alithien is a very responsible and knowledgeable editor, and he and I reverted as did you and Armon. I'm glad to see you will fix the passage.Nishidani 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • Read Mr Van Rees' testimony and the Mandatory Commission's Review of the Shaw Report. Since the text already refers to that report, you, as an involved editor, are supposed to have read it. Nishidani 16:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• please cut thje condisending tone. I am aware of that tetimony. I am looking for a much broad, historic overview which (and I quote you) "framing' Al-Husayni's 1919-1929 behaviour, not as representative of the general Arab revolt against the Balfour Declaration" Zeq 16:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq's editing of some Israel-Palestine pages has been challenged - and is under scrutiny here. He is alleged to have been editing pages from which he was supposed to have been permanently barred. PR^talk 15:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

...and you've narrowly avoided a indefinite block for your "participation" on WP. Stick to the matter at hand -the article. <<-armon->> 00:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed by a further British re-investigation

Snell's opinion was, several years later, endorsed by a further British re-investigation, which considered the Mufti's innovations at the Wailing Wall doubly provocative, in aiming to both annoy the Jews, and to emphasize Muslim ownership of the site. It concluded that the Wailing Wall episodes constituted 'one of the principle immediate causes of those disturbances' http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/3d14c9e5cdaa296d85256cbf005aa3eb/5f21f8a1ca578a57052566120067f658!OpenDocument

I've moved the sentence here so we can work it out what the facts are. If it's erroneous, we don't want it in the article. <<-armon->> 04:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC) The source is: PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH(Extraordinary)SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930 -I don't find the quoted phrase "one of the principle immediate causes of those disturbances" so this will have to be changed. Is there another RS source, that used this phrase which was commenting on the 17th session? <<-armon->> 04:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't seem to have anything for the subsequent re-investigation, we're pointing back to the 1930 PMC. Furthermore, the "minority opinion" in 1930 is irrelevant. Modern historians (eg the Zionist Benny Morris) make it clear that there were long-standing and eventually violent attempts to seize the Wall. Yes, the Mufti did contribute to the riots, but the alarm of the Palestinians wasn't based on some kind of "false rumour". The 1929 riots occured when yet another, violent, attempt was made to seize the wall while the British, who'd previously protected the ownership rights on the wall, were away on their summer holidays. PR^talk 07:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mufti's image

I gather that the Mufti's image reviewing SS troops has been removed, and cannot understand why. I mean it is part of his record, and I can't see anything polemical in having it on the page. If anyone can give me a simple explanation why it can't be there, I would appreciate it.Nishidani 08:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was deleted because it was missing non-free use rationale. Non-free images or media claiming fair use but without a use rationale may be deleted seven days after they are tagged. <<-armon->> 11:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, removing it looks like a mistake. It was commented out because there were 2 images, one of which had been deleted. It's back. <<-armon->> 12:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Nishidani 12:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Notes on good and bad sources

I know one is not to dispute sources by original research. One should however (1) read sources (2) see if they add to the RSs already present. Here I will make some notes, not of original research, but merely remarking what some sources used argue, and the problems for the text of what they argue. I leave it to others to judge whether, in consequence, they will prove useful. Personally I think one should aim for the best sources, and keep out repetitive tertiary material of the tabloid type, which only conveys an opinion of indifferent value.

(a) I have no haste but the Dalin article in the lead is a terrible mess as evidence. He has not examined most of the sources, and gets a large number of facts wrong, and perhaps a better source is available. After all, al-Husayni has attracted much scholarship, and this is simply not up to snuff. I.e.

'On August 23, 1929, al-Husseini led a massacre of sixty Jews in Hebron and another forty-five in Safad'.'

He didn't lead a massacre which at least in English suggests that al-Husayni was there in the crowd. He was suspected of being responsible for the inflamed passions that lead to those massacres.

The number of Jews massacred in Hebron was 65-67
The number of Jews murdered in Safed on the 29th(not 23rd) was 18.

led a massacre secondly implies an ascertained historical fact, whereas the 'smoking gun' linking him directly to an order to kill the Jews in Hebron and Safed doesn't exist (so far). He was absolved of legal responsibility by the Shaw Report because of the lack of evidence for this that would stand up in court. He was considered responsible by the Mandatory Commission because they weren't concerned with legal proof, but circumstantial evidence which indicated he at least had a moral and political responsibility (I agree with this, personally, but at the same time agree with historians that the record regarding 'responsibilities' for the riots does not lay solely with al-Husayni, but with many other actors as well - the British, the Jabotinsky brigades, newspapers on both sides etc).

Etc.etc.Nishidani 12:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(b) The text has:-

'It should be noted that some recent research, however, apparently argues that al-Husayni did work with Eichmann for the despatch of a special corps of Einsatz commandos to exterminate the Jews in Palestina, if Rommel managed to break through the British lines in Egypt.[24].'

I put this in following an indication from Talk and Zeq. I relied on the German text in the Stuttgart, Aktuelles report on their research (n.24). I have now read closely Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers's paper. There is no additional information there on Al-Husayni, other than the fact that Rauff's assistant helped him in Berlin. Indeed the reference to al-Husayni's connection with Eichmann, which several historians deny, is not corroborated by new research on their part, but simply cites the disproven testimony of Wisliceny. The appropriate note reads:-

Vern. Dieter Wisliceny v. 26.7.1946, Yad Vashem Archives, TR.3/129; on Wisliceny, see Dan Michman, “Täteraussagen und Geschichtswissenschaft. Der Fall Dieter Wisliceny und der Entscheidungsprozeß zur ‘Endlösung’,” in Matthäus and Mallmann, eds., Deutsche, Juden, Völkermord, pp. 205–219; Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem. Ein Bericht von der Banalität des Bösen (Munich-Zürich: Piper, 1986), p. 37, by contrast, Eichmann’s defensive claim was that he was introduced to the Mufti and met him only once, at an official reception. (p.27 n.84)

In other words, the Mallmann-Cuppers paper has nothing to add to what RSs already cited in the page give us, and indeed conserves dated testimony which the Eichmann trial (as Arendt, whom we have quoted, noted, and many historians confirm) dismisses as disproven.

For the curious, what Mallmann-Cuppers' paper does argue is that Rauff's Einsatz commando was a forward troop (of 24 men, originally and then 100) put into Africa to finish off the Holocaust in Palestine (against 500,000 Jews) when Rommel from the West and the German army from the Caucasus broke through. The problem with their thesis is that Raul Hilberg documents that the Rauff commandos, when they finally had in their grasp the 80,000 Jews of Tunisia, were forbidden by the German Foreign Office's troubleshooter, (Rahn) at the time attached to the German Embassy in Rome, to do any more than round up men from that community to engage in fortification hard labour, and extort 47 kilos of gold from them. The Bosnian evidence is far better than this stuff, and I think the page would benefit from a more detailed exposition of al_Husayni's work with the Islamic regiment there Nishidani 14:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mufti images

The delete of mufti images based on some "copyright unknown" issue is ridiculus argument. these are images from over 60 years ago. they are in the public domain for a long time and are all over the web. The photographer was an officila for Nazi Germany which no longer claim any copyright for any of it's intelectual property... Zeq 13:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide some sort of proof/link that Nazi-produced media has been declared to be in the public domain? That they are "all over the web" is not a valid argument, as many, many sites use images and other media without permission. This image in particular appears to have been copied from a right-wing blog, as the pixel and file size match exactly. I have contacted that blogger to see where he got it from, but if you can provide poof of the public domain claim, then it would make that request moot, as there are no restrictions on what one can do with PD images. Tarc 14:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarc. Well the problem, I see, is technical. But I cannot image that those Nazis who took thousands of obscene photos of people being massacred in WW2 have any case for asking for fees or exercising copyright over them. Just from a moral point of view (I know this doesn't count) the only people who should have copyright on this material are the actual victims' heirs. Wiki never ceases to surprise for these quixotic issues it raises Nishidani 15:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarc - here is the proof that this is now public domain http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-06,RNWE:en&q=mufti%20hitler&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi Zeq 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I will ask you again to provide a source that says that Nazi-era images are in the public domain. Do not insult both my intelligence and the intelligence of others again by posting links to simplistic google hits. Tarc 22:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel insulted by a proof that these photos are in the public domain (as they were taken 60 years ago by an entity that no longer exit) that is your own probelm. Don't be insulted by the facts - they have no intention to insult. Zeq 04:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq. Tarc's request is technical correct. I don't think anyone would disallow the image, since it is pertinent documentation. There are rules governing the use of images, and Tarc is simply asking that they be verified. Someone on Wiki should surely know about the technical copyright law governing Nazi material like this. It is purely a matter of disinterested curiosity, and of procedures.There is no subtext here, as far as I can see Nishidani 09:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, you did not introduce facts into this discussion, only your non-expert opinion on copyright law. I found what I was looking for here; WP:PD#German_World_War_II_images where it seems that, outside of material confiscated by the US government (and even that claim seems to be shaky), such images are not in the public domain. The image in question currently has a fair sue rationale for the Islam and antisemitism article, but a separate rationale will need to be written to justify its use in this article. Tarc 13:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One-eyed historical focus

Recent edits do not give one much confidence that the prior tendency to eliminate inconvenient facts crucial to certain contexts, and focus unilaterally on whatever evidence can frame al Husayni as an antisemite, has been conquered. Trying to retrospectively read the 1921-1929 period in terms of Nazism and al Husayni as leader is unhistorical. Laqueur, Benny Morris even Ben Ari and Schechtman give sufficient details to show that within Zionism there were two schools, one, the mainstream, that accepted a Jewish homeland would not be a state, and the other revisionist Zionism under Jabotinsky, which said it must become a Jewish state. Both in the 1921 and 1929 riots, Jabotinsky and al-Husayni were considered by the authorities as responsible. In 1921 both got gaol terms, in Dec 1929, after writing for public consumption in Jerusalem that it had been a good thing to 'provoke' the Arabs to do what they did (and Betarim had constituted the core of the provocateurs), Jabotinsky was permanently banned from returning to Palestine. To lay the blame on al Husayni alone is scapegoating. His position was shared by not only many religious figures, but also political figures on the Arab Executive, as both the League of Nations and the Shaw Report recognize. Thirdly, both the League of Nations and Shaw Reports hold less weight that the recent historical literature, which has been harvested only for whatever fits the schema, and ignored whenever the evidence tells against the story line this page seems dedicated to upholding for that early period. Nishidani 21:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or. I wrote the above before seeing your erasure of the POV label. Read back. Zeq and Armon have cancelled out Benny Morris, Walter Laqueur and Lenni Brenner's reconstruction of the events recounted partially in the Shaw Report and the League of Nations Report. They have highlighted the League's Mr Van Rees' remarks, and ignored everything else. They have highlighted the Snell minority view, and ignored everything else. Modern historians are supposed to give the full story, not a partial account. This does not mean that the page was slip into a disquisition on both Inquiries. But the language must not give the false impression that substantial parts of both documents fingered Al Husayni. They listed a large number of causes for the riots, and al Husayni's role is by no means that of sole inspirer, as the text would have us believe. Both reports note considerable Jewish responsibilities (Betarim demonstrations for example), economic fears, and general Arab resentment that their homeland was being given to alien third parties. The page instead gives the impression that had al Husayni not existed, no such disturbances would have occurred. Not even the League of Nations Commission believed that. They believed that had not the Jews existed, probably the Arabs would have risen up against the British colonial power Nishidani 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No one here lays all the blame on the mufti. The Shaw Report said he was partially responsible; this is what is relevant for the article about him. If you want to discuss the causes and consequences of 1929 or 1936 riots, there are appropriate articles for that. Beit Or 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The point that Nisagdini misses is that this is an article about the Mufti. WE should highlight all that he has done: the parts that is views by some as positive and the part that is viwed by others as negative. It is possible that the same act is viwed differetnly by different po\eople. In nay case the Mufti, his viwes, his action are the subject of this article. I don't think it matters if he was responsible by 35% or 55% or 65% to some specific act. The issue is much more general - who he was, what diod he symbolize, what did he initiate, why people followed him, what was he against. I am sure even Nishadini would agree on that. Zeq 07:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid neither Beit nor Zeq appear to understand how biographies and historical articles are written. All historians of the period and of Al Husayni deal with the period, the context, in order to understand the figure. What this article does is selectively read the record to dig up whatever is negative (fine by me), and, at the same time, exclude whatever might cast a more complex light on his actions. These articles are supposed to give full voice to the historians, not a partial reading based on one or two passages in several that appeal to some editors. Protest as much as you like, but Morris, Laqueur and the rest will come back to the page. Zeq again, you seem to think this is a balancing act between 'positive' and 'negative' and therein lies your failure to understand how an article should be written. That one must contextualize the 'negative' acts of Al Husayni in the realities of his time does not mean one is evaluating those acts 'positively'. It simply means one is making sense of them. To remove the context, all you end up is with a solitary maniac motivated by some obscure passionate antisemitism, being hostile to Jews in Palestine in 1920-1929 because they are Jews. He like most Arabs, Muslim and Christian, disliked the Balfour Declaration because it betrayed promises undertaken for an independent state, and looked like handing over that area to a foreign immigrant population. That does not make his incitements 'positive', it makes them 'intelligible', as part of a counter-nationalistic mood, arising in reaction to Zionism. since all Israeli and Jewish historians I am familiar with agree that this is the case, I fail to understand why every attempt to report these facts is systemaically repressed (well actually I do know why:-). Nishidani 11:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani should apply these ideas to articles such as Israeli arabs, Nakba. He could explain that in 1948 many population transfers took place. In fact throughout all the 2oth century hundreds of millions were displaced. There is nothing unique about Palestinians - when viewed "with the period, the context". same would be about israeli arbs - they enjoy better conditions than say , Arabs in Syria. So if you want context - sure, apply it in every article. you are more than welcome to provide context here as well. If you think that being against Jews because they are jews is NOT antisemitism - just quote a source saying it.

As for your refusal to mix the "good" and "bad" I suggest you review WP:NPOV Zeq 18:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, you're descending ever further into personal attacks and incivility. Please state point-by-point what edits you wish to make and why. Otherwise, we'll never have a productive discussion. Beit Or 21:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, I tend to ignore his violation of WP:NPA at least for now as his edits are so clearly POV and violate policy. Let's find out what explnation he has for the edit below (which is against what he actually claimed just few days earlier). let's hear what he has to say. Maybe we will get a short relevant answer ??? who knows . Zeq 02:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't violatedWP:NPOV or WP:NPA or any other rule. I am calling a spade a spade. Neither of you can justify recent behaviour of editing out a whole section in which historians contextualize both the Shaw Report and the Mandatory Report of the League of Nations. In both those documents, unlike what you give here, Amin al Husayni is not Moriarty. His responsibility is one of many causes for the incidents. The text makes him out as leader of the revolts, which were, in both documents, rooted in a generalized Arab resistance to the Balfour Declaration and the LN project. I.e., you are both editing to create a POV, and this shows both incompetence, a contempt for all evidence undermining your POV and an insouciance to Wiki requirements for neutral editing.Nishidani 09:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, please be specific: what edits do you want to make and why? Beit Or 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishadini explain this edit please

You yourself said that Hussenini was against the Balfour Declaration of 1917 - so why this [31] ? Zeq 18:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Had you read the Mandatory paper of 1930 you would have recognized that 'Jewish National Home' in Palestine is the standard League of Nations and British Policy term (from 1922) for the project. Neither the League of Nations nor Britain agreed with the idea that a Jewish state (as it was put earlier on this page) was on the cards. That was an idea pushed by Jabotinsky at the time.Nishidani 09:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A state or not a state is not the issue here. I did not use the word state. The term used is the one used in the balfour declration and still you again reverted it without justification. I ask you again to explain why you made the revert. Please do not include in your answer speculation as to what another editor read or not - as you have no way knowing what I read. Zeq 05:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a revolutionary suggestion

Friends:

I have been lurking around this article since my single comment, in response to your RFC. I must say that, while I am impressed with the sincerity of both sides of this dispute, the thinly veiled acrimony that accompanies it does nothing good for the article, let alone your blood pressures.

I would like to propose a new approach to this article, one which has never been tried on the Wikipedia. I described it in a post I made at Wikipedia talk:Don't "call a spade a spade"#I have my own views. Please take a look at it and see if this is something you would like to try.

If you decide you want to try the approach, I am willing to act as mediator, if one is necessary.

Regards,

--Ravpapa 16:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a useful suggestion, since the opposite sides are more or less both sides of the coin Zeq is manufacturing, i.e. that Al Husayni was simultaneously an anti-semitic Nazi and the Father of the Palestinian Nationalist movement. The former was true from certainly the late 30s. The latter is a patent historical distortion, disowned both by the Shaw Report and the League of Nations review, and by later historians.

Since it's news to me that Al Husayni was, historically, the father of the Palestinian Nationalist movement, rather than being but one of many such figures, and the one given a high profile notoriety because of his Nazi-links, which enable POVers to smear Palestinian claims for autonomy as tainted with Nazism, I obviously can't join in. My only interest here is getting a page that is consistent with the known-facts, whatever they are, and not, as in the case of Zeq's agenda, balancing what he calls POV and POV. Facts are not POV, and it is the facts, not a POV I adduce which are being rejected, such as the fact that Jabotinsky himself claimed responsibility for the Arab riots, which he had incited via Betarim's mass demonstrations. Husayni is thought to bear responsibility, and so too, Jabotinsky. The British recognized the latter's grave responsibility for provocations and had Jabotinsky banned from ever setting foot in Palestine in Dec 1929. Not a word of this can, apparently, appear in the text, which reads as if history vindicates the accusation that al Husayni was the ringleader of riots that, of themselves, arose from antisemitism, and without any provocation. Nishidani 17:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if I misinterpreted your position in this dispute. The text that appears in my example is purely to emphasize the polarity of the views - we would have to write a lead to the article which would be mutually agreeable, and you are certainly free to write whatever you want on your side of the page.

Given your unwavering belief in the historical record as you see it, I am certain that you believe that you could present a very convincing article if only Zeq didn't keep mucking it up. I am sure that Zeq feels the same way, just with the names switched. Don't you think that would be better than having this article sink into a morass of polemics and waddle around in that morass several times a day?

Anyway, it takes two to tango. If you guys want to keep slugging it out, it's your choice. --Ravpapa 19:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

'Given your unwavering belief in the historical record as you see it.'

I'm afriad this insistence on regarding my editing as governed by 'the historical record as I see it,' is wholly misplaced. I am insisting simply on 'the historical record' as that has been laid before editors by recognized historians, and not on jamming the text with unilateral conclusions (editorial POV). If, in an edit dispute, another editor gives me firm grounds for challenging something I have written, or for defending his own edit (see for a few examples Menachem Begin talk page, or exchanges with User:Tewfik), I do not press the point, but recognize immediately the justice of the other editor's call. That is my natural pattern of editing - rules and evidence. I have only had run-ins with editors who are determined to put across a monocular slant on the material in defiance of the historical record, with editors who vigorously oppose any material that does not support the line they wish to adopt with a certain article. All these latter editors have a poor record with rule-violations and in arbitration disputes.

I am not 'acrimonious', nor do I enjoy 'slugging it away' with someone. Nor do I think that in every dispute whatever, a mediator of good will, as is the unwitting tendency of so many editors in Wiki, can prove his neutrality by saying 'you're both right' or 'your both wrong'. A neutral editor should be one who examines the arguments laid by each side for material strictly in terms of the criteria governing reliable sources. In this case, two editors have refused to accept evidence given by four reputable historians of the period, Laqueur, Schechtman, Morris and Brenner. This is, technically, a patent violation of the rules governing the composition of Wiki articles. For they are reliable sources, and you cannot contest a Reliable Source, you can only challenge the way evidence from Reliable Sources is presented (improper deductions, misleading representations of their positions etc).

Given this recent impasse, generally, I have not meddled in the article since Zeq had me cornered in a 3RR violation. Look at the record. I have simply maintained, on this page, that what he is doing (a) violates Wiki procedures (b) shows an ignorance, as often as not, of both the relevant historical materials bearing on the period and an inability to write what he does know in comprehensible English. In some cases, he is citing sources he has not read. No acrimony, no slugging. Just a request to other editors to read more history, and spend less time trawling the net for inferior sources to egg the pud for a preconceived POV. I will return to editing the article seriously when I find some sign of editorial competence in here. To 'slug it away' with someone who does not understand the rules is a waste of my time.Nishidani 10:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems indeed true that the divide here is not so much between pro and anti, but between those who want mere facts and those who try to present facts as much as possible in a light which serves their political goals. Paul kuiper NL 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What you call "facts" are what others call "views" so this comment has not helped us move forward. Clearly there are two viwes and both need to be represneted. there is enough scholarly evidence about Husseienin and his various roles. He was a great leader for the Palestinian people and inspired them tremandesly. Has he done them dissrevice ? that can be debated but not what he did and who he did it with and against whom he did it. Zeq 05:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should be able to understand that you give the strong impression that your motives are political. Obviously you do not like the Palestinian cause, and equally obviously you try to link Nazi-sympathizer al-Husayni as closely as possible to the present Palestinian cause. And, of course, Nishidani is right that this is 'a violation of the rules governing the composition of Wiki articles'. Paul kuiper NL 16:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The only problem is that I did none of those things. I help write about an important historic figure. that is all. None of your accusations hold any water. Let's move on. Please avoid second guessing motives of other editors. You are not a mind-reader. Zeq 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

answer from Zeq

It was written here:

"Given your unwavering belief in the historical record as you see it, I am certain that you believe that you could present a very convincing article if only Zeq didn't keep mucking it up. I am sure that Zeq feels the same way"

No. I don't "feel this way" at all. Everyone is welcome to edit the article and I have said many times on talk that both POV (his role as a palestinian national leader) should be represeted. WP:NPOV explain to us how these views can be combined. The man is viwed by many as a hero and we should not shy away from saying what he stood for. Zeq 05:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What edits do you want to make and why?

Beit Or's comment has been completely ignored and frankly, it applies to Zeq and Paul kuiper NL as well. Stop arguing about how biased or not the other guy is, and talk about specific edits. <<-armon->> 01:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The amply documented material by several distinguished historians you and Zeq consistently eliminated because you disliked it personally.Nishidani 08:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds vague. Can you post your suggested edits on the talk page? Beit Or 08:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

See Nishidani 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC) on Schechtman, Laqueur, Morris and Brenner. It's all been discussed before.Nishidani 10:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So, what's the problem with posting your desired edits here instead of referring me your prior comment where you just habitually complain? Beit Or 20:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I posted my edit, in stages, several times here and they were kicked off the page with the flimsiest of pseudo-justifications. I don't habitually complain(t?). I remark on the fact that editors here casually violate wiki procedures to get off the page reliable sources, while they edit away, and ask me, alone, to justify my reliable sources on the talk page. If I have five scholarly sources which say that historians do not see Amin's hand as the only one responsible for the 1929 riots, sources which show how complex that incident was, I do not see what justification exists to keep that information off the page, unless it is a POV-driven WP:OWN, policy, in short. I'm in no hurry. I'm waiting for serious editors to turn up Nishidani 22:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Again. PLEASE. Stop fighting and complaining and clearly discuss specific edits. Otherwise, this is just causing conflict for no purpose. <<-armon->> 01:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you see any sign of my 'fighting' please report it. I am not 'complaining' either. I am noting what I consider irresponsible conduct. You personally eliminated evidence from RSources, without an adequate justification, and now ask that I have its possible reintroduction vetted by you and others on this page. Until I am given a solid reason why Schechtman, Laqueur, Morris, Sykes and Brenner are not reliable sources for contextualizing the 1929 riots, I will refrain from wasting my time, precisely, in edit warring with irresponsible editors. I am thus refraining from 'fighting' and 'edit warring'. When I see signs of a serious understanding of what constitutes evidence and what does not, I will participate in editing the page. Nishidani 10:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, you are free to edit. Use any source which is WP:RS but you must understand WP:NPOV - what you see as "fact" is just one POV. there are other POVs. All of the major ones have room in the article. Zeq 10:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to understand WP:NPOV. You and a few others who exclude reliable sources from outstanding historians need to understand WP:Reliable Source. It is not what I see as a fact that is in dispute, but rather what you and others refuse to see as a reliable multiple-sourced series of historians' judgements which you refuse to allow into the article. Until this jejune gaming of the text ceases, there is little point in wasting time in edit wars. Go back and examine the rules. Nishidani 10:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion strikes me as completely pointless. Beit Or 10:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

True. We tried. let's keep on trying via mediation.Zeq 14:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish state - homeland

Balfour declaration and Mandate declaration didn't talk about a "jewish state" but about a "homeland for the jewish nation".
This disappointed much Weizmann and Zionist leader (like Ben Gurion who complained about this). Right or wrong, the Palestinian Arabs, and their leader the Mufti, feared that the Zionist aims was to expell them from their own country to build a Jewish state.
That is what they fought.
Source : One Palestine : complete, Tom Segev. Part I.
Alithien 20:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, Segev is a journalist, not a historian, and thus hardly an authority on historical matters. Secondly, the discussion of what or whom the mufti fought may take long, but it's best to let the facts speak for themselves. Beit Or 22:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

More important Segev is highly biased. If you think the Mufti was "afraid" of something - please find a quote where he express his concern. He did express his objection to National homeland for the Jews. Zeq 23:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no question that the Yishuv was threatening the Holy Places at least as early as 1922. They were intent on land seizures from 1881, and some of the Palestinians were getting thoroughly alarmed by 1891. There's no excuse for white-washing the historical record. PR^talk 02:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Enough with re-writes of History

"(Weizmann and Zionist leaders clearly stated they wanted Palestine to become a Jewish state and Palestinians (with the Mufti, their leader) fought against this goal and the fear they had to be expelled)" - this is not true, has no basis in sources and simply misleading. Enough with this . read 1917 Balfour, read the 1922 mandate - all keep the rights of Palestinians. No one wanted to exples them prior to the 1929 and 1936 riots. Zeq 23:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should go back to the historical sources and examine them again. The Zionists all wanted ethnic cleansing, we know of that for sure even 13 years before Herzl. Herzl himself and everyone who came after wanted it. Many/most of them knew it to be a problem and kept quiet about it, but even so there's plenty enough evidence of their intentions.

Husseini may have incited the riots in 1929 - but it was the only thing that kept the Western Wall in the legal ownership of the rightful owners for as long as it remained that way.

Even the pro-ethnic cleansing Israeli historian Morris makes that perfectly clear and we should not have to be telling you this. PR^talk 02:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Morris is a biggot and in any case what you say zionist wanted does not have bearing on what the Mufti said or did. This is not what about you or I think Zionist want - it is an article on a historic figure. Why don'y you add how he was the founder of Palestinian nationalism, his role - with Ezz a Din al-kasam and Hasan al-banna in creating arabic nationalism. There is so much to add about him instead of arguing about what Zionists wanted. Zeq 10:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotes to be added

"

…the darkest aspect of the Mufti’s activities in the final stage of the war was undoubtedly his personal share in the extermination of Europe’s Jewish population. On May 17, 1943, he wrote a personal letter to Ribbentrop, asking him to prevent the transfer of 4500 Bulgarian Jews, 4000 of them children, to Palestine. In May and June of the same year, he sent a number of letters to the governments of Bulgaria, Italy, Rumania, and Hungary, with the request not to permit even individual Jewish emigration and to allow the transfer of Jews to Poland where, he claimed they would be ‘under active supervision’. The trials of Eichmann’s henchmen, including Dieter Wislicency who was executed in Bratislava, Czechoslovakia, confirmed that this was not an isolated act by the Mufti."

Jan Wanner, “Amin al-Husayni and Germany’s Arab Policy”, p. 243 Zeq 11:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotes to be added

"

…the darkest aspect of the Mufti’s activities in the final stage of the war was undoubtedly his personal share in the extermination of Europe’s Jewish population. On May 17, 1943, he wrote a personal letter to Ribbentrop, asking him to prevent the transfer of 4500 Bulgarian Jews, 4000 of them children, to Palestine. In May and June of the same year, he sent a number of letters to the governments of Bulgaria, Italy, Rumania, and Hungary, with the request not to permit even individual Jewish emigration and to allow the transfer of Jews to Poland where, he claimed they would be ‘under active supervision’. The trials of Eichmann’s henchmen, including Dieter Wislicency who was executed in Bratislava, Czechoslovakia, confirmed that this was not an isolated act by the Mufti."

Jan Wanner, “Amin al-Husayni and Germany’s Arab Policy”, p. 243 Zeq 11:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly not to be added because it merely repeats information already contained on the page, with specific dates, from Schecthman, Hilberg and others.I.e.

:: However, Husseini did intervene on May 13,1943, with the German Foreign Office to block possible transfers of Jews from Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumenia, after reports reached him that 4000 Jewish children accompanied by 500 adults had managed to reach Palestine. He asked that the Foreign Minister 'to do his utmost' to block all such proposals and this request was complied with.[28].

This repetition of the same data is a matter of overegging the pud. Dieter Wislicency's evidence furthermore has been consistently shown to be unreliable, and is no longer considered relevant (read the page).Nishidani 11:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. you can write it more politly. I am glad you decided to contribute to the content . indeed your suggestion is a good one. Key point is "that this this was not an isolated act by the Mufti.". We can merge the two sources. also we should add more info from this article: [32] , [33] including his role in leading the Palestinians. Zeq 11:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please try to read remarks addressed to you carefully. There can be no 'merging' of two sources. The original text, cited above, about May 13,1943, is straight from the article(Amin Al Husayni), and was put there from me from Raul Hilberg's book, together with the quote following from Schechtman. The text you are trying to add says exactly the same thing, and, unlike Hilberg, gets things wrong (Dieter Wislicency), you have harvested it from a paper written by a medical doctor, Andrew Bostom, for Frontpage magazine, which happens then to cite Jan Wanner, in, “Amin al-Husayni and Germany’s Arab Policy in the Period 1939-1945”, Archiv Orientalni Vol. 54, 1986. The citation is old material, some of it extremely dated, already available from the scholarly material on the page. You must learn to distinguish serious secondary sources from the infinite number of spinoffs of those secondary sources on netrags like Frontpage magazine, which, on this particular subject, has nothing new to add to what the historians say. Nishidani 16:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

An Important source

Minutes of the meeting with Hitler and Husseini. Source: Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918-1945, Series D, Vol XIII, London, 1964, pp.881 ff.

German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini: Zionism and the Arab Cause (November 28, 1941)

Haj Amin al-Husseini, the most influential leader of Palestinian Arabs, lived in Germany during the Second World War. He met Hitler, Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders on various occasions and attempted to coordinate Nazi and Arab policies in the Middle East.

Record of the Conversation between the Fuhrer and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem on November 28, 1941, in the Presence of Reich Foreign Minister and Minister Grobba in Berlin.

The Grand Mufti began by thanking the Fuhrer for the great honor he had bestowed by receiving him. He wished to seize the opportunity to convey to the Fuhrer of the Greater German Reich, admired by the entire Arab world, his thanks of the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially the Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches. The Arab countries were firmly convinced that Germany would win the war and that the Arab cause would then prosper. The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely the English, the Jews, and the Communists. Therefore they were prepared to cooperate with Germany with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in the war, not only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage and the instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an Arab Legion. The Arabs could be more useful to Germany as allies than might be apparent at first glance, both for geographical reasons and because of the suffering inflicted upon them by the English and the Jews. Furthermore, they had had close relations with all Moslem nations, of which they could make use in behalf of the common cause. The Arab Legion would be quite easy to raise. An appeal by the Mufti to the Arab countries and the prisoners of Arab, Algerian, Tunisian, and Moroccan nationality in Germany would produce a great number of volunteers eager to fight. Of Germany's victory the Arab world was firmly convinced, not only because the Reich possessed a large army, brave soldiers, and military leaders of genius, but also because the Almighty could never award the victory to an unjust cause.

In this struggle, the Arabs were striving for the independence and unity of Palestine, Syria, and Iraq. They had the fullest confidence in the Fuhrer and looked to his hand for the balm on their wounds, which had been inflicted upon them by the enemies of Germany.

The Mufti then mentioned the letter he had received from Germany, which stated that Germany was holding no Arab territories and understood and recognized the aspirations to independence and freedom of the Arabs, just as she supported the elimination of the Jewish national home.

A public declaration in this sense would be very useful for its propagandistic effect on the Arab peoples at this moment. It would rouse the Arabs from their momentary lethargy and give them new courage. It would also ease the Mufti's work of secretly organizing the Arabs against the moment when they could strike. At the same time, he could give the assurance that the Arabs would in strict discipline patiently wait for the right moment and only strike upon an order form Berlin.

With regard to the events in Iraq, the Mufti observed that the Arabs in that country certainly had by no means been incited by Germany to attack England, but solely had acted in reaction to a direct English assault upon their honor.

The Turks, he believed, would welcome the establishment of an Arab government in the neighboring territories because they would prefer weaker Arab to strong European governments in the neighboring countries and, being themselves a nations of 7 million, they had moreover nothing to fear from the 1,700,000 Arabs inhabiting Syria, Transjordan, Iraq, and Palestine.

France likewise would have no objections to the unification plan because she had conceded independence to Syria as early as 1936 and had given her approval to the unification of Iraq and Syria under King Faisal as early as 1933.

In these circumstances he was renewing his request that the Fuhrer make a public declaration so that the Arabs would not lose hope, which is so powerful a force in the life of nations. With such hope in their hearts the Arabs, as he had said, were willing to wait. They were not pressing for immediate realization for their aspirations; they could easily wait half a year or a whole year. But if they were not inspired with such a hope by a declaration of this sort, it could be expected that the English would be the gainers from it.

The Fuhrer replied that Germany's fundamental attitude on these questions, as the Mufti himself had already stated, was clear. Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine, which was nothing other than a center, in the form of a state, for the exercise of destructive influence by Jewish interests. Germany was also aware that the assertion that the Jews were carrying out the functions of economic pioneers in Palestine was a lie. The work there was done only by the Arabs, not by the Jews. Germany was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time to direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well.

Germany was at the present time engaged in a life and death struggle with two citadels of Jewish power: Great Britain and Soviet Russia. Theoretically there was a difference between England's capitalism and Soviet Russia's communism; actually, however, the Jews in both countries were pursuing a common goal. This was the decisive struggle; on the political plane, it presented itself in the main as a conflict between Germany and England, but ideologically it was a battle between National Socialism and the Jews. It went without saying that Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle, because platonic promises were useless in a war for survival or destruction in which the Jews were able to mobilize all of England's power for their ends.

The aid to the Arabs would have to be material aid. Of how little help sympathies alone were in such a battle had been demonstrated plainly by the operation in Iraq, where circumstances had not permitted the rendering of really effective, practical aid. In spite of all the sympathies, German aid had not been sufficient and Iraq was overcome by the power of Britain, that is, the guardian of the Jews.

The Mufti could not but be aware, however, that the outcome of the struggle going on at present would also decide the fate of the Arab world. The Fuhrer therefore had to think and speak coolly and deliberately, as a rational man and primarily as a soldier, as the leader of the German and allied armies. Everything of a nature to help in this titanic battle for the common cause, and thus also for the Arabs, would have to be done. Anything however, that might contribute to weakening the military situation must be put aside, no matter how unpopular this move might be.

Germany was now engaged in very severe battles to force the gateway to the northern Caucasus region. The difficulties were mainly with regard to maintaining the supply, which was most difficult as a result of the destruction of railroads and highways as well as the oncoming winter. If at such a moment, the Fuhrer were to raise the problem of Syria in a declaration, those elements in France which were under de Gaulle's influence would receive new strength. They would interpret the Fuhrer's declaration as an intention to break up France's colonial empire and appeal to their fellow countrymen that they should rather make common cause with the English to try to save what still could be saved. A German declaration regarding Syria would in France be understood to refer to the French colonies in general, and that would at the present time create new troubles in western Europe, which means that a portion of the German armed forces would be immobilized in the west and no longer be available for the campaign in the east.

The Fuhrer then made the following statement to the Mufti, enjoining him to lock it in the uttermost depths of his heart:

1. He (the Fuhrer) would carry on the battle to the total destruction of the Judeo-Communist empire in Europe. 2. At some moment which was impossible to set exactly today but which in any event was not distant, the German armies would in the course of this struggle reach the southern exit from Caucasia. 3. As soon as this had happened, the Fuhrer would on his own give the Arab world the assurance that its hour of liberation had arrived. Germany's objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. It would then be his task to set off the Arab operations, which he had secretly prepared. When that time had come, Germany could also be indifferent to French reaction to such a declaration.

Once Germany had forced open the road to Iran and Iraq through Rostov; it would be also the beginning of the end of the British World Empire. He (the Fuhrer) hoped that the coming year would make it possible for Germany to thrust open the Caucasian gate to the Middle East. For the good of their common cause, it would be better if the Arab proclamation were put off for a few more months than if Germany were to create difficulties for herself without being able thereby to help the Arabs.

He (the Fuhrer) fully appreciated the eagerness of the Arabs for a public declaration of the sort requested by the Grand Mufti. But he would beg him to consider that he (the Fuhrer) himself was the Chief of State of the German Reich for five long years during which he was unable to make to his own homeland the announcement of its liberation. He had to wait with that until the announcement could be made on the basis of a situation brought about by the force of arms that the Anschluss had been carried out.

The moment that Germany's tank divisions and air squadrons had made their appearance south of the Caucasus, the public appeal requested by the Grand Mufti could go out to the Arab world.

The Grand Mufti replied that it was his view that everything would come to pass just as the Fuhrer had indicated. He was fully reassured and satisfied by the words which he had heard form the Chief of the German State. He asked, however, whether it would not be possible, secretly at least, to enter into an agreement with Germany of the kind he had just outlined for the Fuhrer.

The Fuhrer replied that he had just now given the Grand Mufti precisely that confidential declaration.

The Grand Mufti thanked him for it and stated in conclusion that he was taking his leave from the Fuhrer in full confidence and with reiterated thanks for the interest shown in the Arab cause. SCHMIDT

Zeq 11:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Two Important Sources for what Amin's ultra-Zionist opponents were doing in same period

(1)Nazi Admiration for Zionist Efforts in Palestine.

The Nazis were quite resigned to the partition of Palestine and their main concern became the fate of the 2,000 Germans then living in the country. A few were Catholic monks, a few were mainline Lutherans, but most were Templars, a nineteenth-century sect of pietists who had come to the Holy Land for the shortly expected return of Jesus. They had eventually settled in six prosperous colonies, four of which would be in the Zionist enclave. No matter how much the WZO leadership wanted to avoid antagonising Berlin over the Templars, now almost all good Nazis, the local Nazi party realised that any spontaneous Jewish boycott after partition would make their position totally impossible. The German Foreign Ministry wanted either to have the colonies under direct British control or, more realistically, to have them moved into the Arab territory.

Popular Arab opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to partition, although the Nashishibis – the clan rivals of the dominant Husaynis – would have accepted a smaller Jewish state. They very reluctantly opposed the British proposal and their evident lack of zeal in opposing the partition, coupled with an intense factional hatred for the Husaynis, led to a ferocious civil war within the Arab community. Outside the country the only ruler who dared to hint at acceptance of the scheme was Abdullah of Trans-Jordan, whose emirate was to be merged with the Palestinian statelet. Ibn Saud in Arabia remained silent. Egypt and Iraq’s ruling cliques publicly lamented, while privately their only concern was that the partition would arouse their own people and trigger a general movement against them and the British.

Understandably, the Germans were completely unconvinced of the Arabs, ability to stave off partition, and when the Mufti finally appeared at their consulate on 15 July 1937, Doehle offered him absolutely nothing. He immediately notified his superiors of the interview: “The Grand Mufti stressed Arab sympathy for the new Germany and expressed the hope that Germany was sympathetic toward the Arab fight against Jewry and was prepared to support it.” Doehle’s response to the proffered alliance was virtually insulting. He told the supplicant that: “after all, there was no question of our playing the role of an arbiter ... I added that it was perhaps tactically in the interests of the Arabs if German sympathy for Arab aspirations were not too marked in German statements.” [11]

In October it was the Zionists’ turn to court the Nazis. On 2 October 1937, the liner Romania arrived in Haifa with two German journalists, aboard. Herbert Hagen and his junior colleague, Eichmann, disembarked. They met their agent, Reichert, and later that day Feivel Polkes, who showed them Haifa from Mount Carmel and took them to visit a kibbutz. Years later, when he was in hiding in Argentina, Eichmann taped the story of his experiences and looked back at his brief stay in Palestine with fond nostalgia:

I did see enough to be very impressed by the way the Jewish colonists were building up their land. I admired their desperate will to live, the more so since I was myself an idealist. In the years that followed I often said to Jews with whom I had dealings that, had I been a Jew, I would have been a fanatical Zionist. I could not imagine being anything else. In fact, I would have been the most ardent Zionist imaginable. [12]

But the two SS men had made a mistake in contacting their local agent; the British CID had become aware of Reichert’s ring, and two days later they summarily expelled the visitors to Egypt. Polkes followed them there, and further discussions were held on 10 and 11 October at Cairo’s Cafe Groppi. In their report on their expedition Hagen and Eichmann gave a careful rendering of Polkes’s words at these meetings. Polkes told the two Nazis:

The Zionist state must be established by all means and as soon as possible ... When the Jewish state is established according to the current proposals laid down in the Peel paper, and in line with England’s partial promises, then the borders may be pushed further outwards according to one’s wishes. [13] He went on:

in Jewish nationalist circles people were very pleased with the radical German policy, since the strength of the Jewish population in Palestine would be so far increased thereby that in the foreseeable future the Jews could reckon upon numerical superiority over the Arabs in Palestine. [14]

During his February visit to Berlin, Polkes had proposed that the Haganah should act as spies for the Nazis, and now he showed their good faith by passing on two pieces of intelligence information. He told Hagen and Eichmann:

the Pan-Islamic World Congress convening in Berlin is in direct contact with two pro-Soviet Arab leaders: Emir Shekib Arslan and Emir Adil Arslan ... The illegal Communist broadcasting station whose transmission to Germany is particularly strong, is, according to Polkes’ statement, assembled on a lorry that drives along the German-Luxembourg border when transmission is on the air. [15]

Next it was the Mufti’s turn to bid again for German patronage. This time he sent his agent, Dr Said Imam, who had studied in Germany and had for a long time been in contact with the German consulate in Beirut, directly to Berlin with an offer. If Germany would “support the Arab independence movement ideologically and materially”, then the Mufti would respond by “Disseminating National Socialist ideas in the Arab-Islamic world; combatting Communism, which appears to be spreading gradually, by employing all possible means”. He also proposed “continuing acts of terrorism in all French colonial and mandated territories inhabited by Arabs or Mohammedans”. If they won, he swore “to utilise only German capital and intellectual resources”. All of this was in the context of a pledge to keep the Semitic and Aryan races apart, which task was delicately referred to as “maintaining and respecting the national convictions of both peoples”. [16] Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of Dictatorship, Croom Helm, London 1984

(2)'It is often stated in the speeches and utterances of the leading statesmen of National Socialist Germany that a prerequisite of the New Order in Europe requires the radical solution of the Jewish question through evacuation (“Jew-free Europe”).

The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question; but this can only be made possible and complete through the settlement of these masses in the home of the Jewish people, Palestine, and through the establishment of a Jewish state in its historic boundaries.

The solving in this manner of the Jewish problem, thus bringing with it once and for all the liberation of the Jewish people, is the objective of the political activity and the years-long struggle of the Israeli freedom movement, the National Military Organization (Irgun Zvai Leumi(= NMO) in Palestine.

The NMO, which is well-acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that:

Common interests could exist between the establishment of a new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO.

Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed folkish-national Hebraium would be possible and,

The establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.

Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany’s side.

This offer by the NMO, covering activity in the military, political and information fields, in Palestine and, according to our determined preparations, outside Palestine, would be connected to the military training and organizing of Jewish manpower in Europe, under the leadership and command of the NMO. These military units would take part in the fight to conquer Palestine, should such a front be decided upon.

The indirect participation of the Israeli freedom movement in the New Order in Europe, already in the preparatory stage, would be linked with a positive-radical solution of the European Jewish problem in conformity with the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Jewish people. This would extraordinarily strengthen the moral basis of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.

The cooperation of the Israeli freedom movement would also be along the lines of one of the last speeches of the German Reich Chancellor, in which Herr Hitler emphasized that he would utilize every combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England.

A brief general view of the formation, essence, and activity of the NMO in Palestine:

The NMO developed partly out of the Jewish self-defense in Palestine and the Revisionist movement (New Zionist Organization), with which the NMO was loosely connected through the person of Mr. V. Jabotinsky until his death.

The pro-English attitude of the Revisionist Organization in Palestine, which prevented the renewal of the personal union, led in the autumn of this year to a complete break between it and the NMO as well as to a thereupon following split in the Revisionist movement.

The goal of the NMO is the establishment of the Jewish state within its historic borders.

The NMO, in contrast to all Zionist trends, rejects colonizatory infiltration as the only means of making accessible and gradually taking possession of the fatherland and practices its slogan, the struggle and the sacrifice, as the only true means for the conquest and liberation of Palestine.

On account of its militant character and its anti-English disposition the NMO is forced, under constant persecutions by the English administration, to exercise its political activity and the military training of its members in Palestine in secret.

The NMO, whose terrorist activities began as early as the autumn of the year 1936, became, after the publication of the British White Papers, especially prominent in the summer of 1939 through successful intensification of its terroristic activity and sabotage of English properly. At that lime these activities, as well as daily secret radio broadcasts, were noticed and discussed by virtually the entire world press.

The NMO maintained independent political offices in Warsaw, Paris. London and New York until the beginning of the war.

The office in Warsaw was mainly concerned with the military organization and training of the national Zionist youth and was closely connected with the Jewish masseswho, especially in Poland, sustained and enthusiastically supported, in every manner, the fight of the NMO in Palestine. Two newspapers were published in Warsaw (The Deed and Liberated Jerusalem): these were organs of the NMO.

The office in Warsaw maintained close relations with the former Polish government and those military circles, who brought greatest sympathy and understanding towards the aims of the NMO. Thus, in the year 1939 selected groups of NMO members were sent from Palestine to Poland, where their military training was completed in barracks by Polish officers.

The negotiations, for the purpose of activating and concertizing their aid, took place between the NMO and the Polish government in Warsaw – the evidence of which can easily be found in the archives of the former Polish government – were terminated because of the beginning of the war. The NMO is closely related to the totalitarian movements of Europe in its ideology and structure. The fighting capacity of the NMO could never be paralyzed or seriously weakened, neither through strong defensive measures by the English administration and the Arabs, nor by those of the Jewish socialists.’

Lenni Brenner, The Iron Wall, Zed Books, London 1984, pp.195-197.

To Tarc

The fact that Husseini was an antisemit is clear. It may be that based on another POV he is also something else. in any case your rational for this edit [34] is wrong. We are not in a "win" Vs "Loose" situation. I have self revrted my edits on the subject few weeks ago giving others a chance to think about it instead of ingaging in edit war. I see that you prefer the edit-war. I will again let you self revert or add your POV but let's make a mistake: Husseinin was an antisemit - it is just a question of when and and how this will also be rfelcted in Wikipedia - not a question of "if". Zeq 12:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your fundamental problem is, put simply this. You are looking at Amin outside of his historical context. Rather as someone commenting on the old Manila world championship of boxing might describe only Joe Frazier, and ignore Muhammed Ali aka Cassius Clay. Amin was one of many Arabs opposed to what they regarded, legitimately, as the betrayal of a promise (MacMahon-Hussein correspondence 1915) and the sell-out of their land to foreigners (European Jews). He, like many other Arabs, fought against this encroachment, with riots, terrorism, diplomacy with Germany, anything at hand. In Zionism, many followers of Jabotinsky and Avraham Stern fought for the Zionist conquest of the land with riots (1929 Betar demonstrations at the Wall), terrorism, and diplomacy with Germany. Amin was one strong voice for some decades, as was Jabotinsky and those groups associated with revisionist Zionism.

When people point this out to you, you think they are supporting Amin (privately I think the rival clan leaders were smarter, and he was a fool). They aren't. They are pointing out simply that you have an obsession with fingering Amin as Nazi, as a weirdo acting without context, historical provocation, and, in so far as he was a leader, someone whose example infected and invalidated all Palestinian resistance to Zionism. For every Amin you can point out, there is a figure in Zionism with a track record as bad as his, and frequently, in that period, they were rivals. Not to see the obvious is evidence for a POV, the desire to paint the history of that times in terms of an heroic myth of innocent Jews fighting against dhimmi-slavers and antisemites to retake land stolen from them 2000 years ago. It was no

such thing.Nishidani 16:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, I have no arguments with your Or as I don't OR myself - I just bring sources. Zeq 18:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

PS, as I explained many times: "Amin supporters" are people outside wikipedia. He was a leader, people supported him, their POV is not represnted in the article. that is a shame. This has nothing to do with the views of wikipedia editors - I never check what view an editor has. Zeq 18:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no OR in what I stated. It is a gloss on the material I adduced, which forms a perfect parallel to the material you adduce. I bring sources, which, when their implications are not understood, I explain. p.s. look at the German Foreign Office's records for Amin and Bose Nov 1941 Nishidani 20:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Huseini was not a leader of the Palestinians or anyone else, the British wanted him to be nothing more than an advisor to a Sharia court, with no influence over anything they intended doing. He was not the leader of the Palestinians because Herbert Samuel wanted all such leadership strangled at birth. Samuel intended there to be a Zionist state and Husseini was to be powerless. It worked. PR^talk 21:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

He was a leader and you know it. EXcept that his leadership cause the Palestinians to align them self with nazi loosers and his unwillingness to compromise lead to the Nakba. but what you and I think is meanigless. Stick to sources. Zeq 09:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dalin's junk. A mess for Zeq or Armon to clean up

The text reads:-

'After his appointment, al-Husayni's propaganda, including sponsoring a new translation into Arabic of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, led to the 1929 Palestine riots, including the 1929 Hebron massacre and the 1929 Safed massacre.[6]

Noter 6 refers us to

n.6 =David G. Dalin, Hitler’s Mufti, First Things (August/September 2005)

The relevant passage in Dalin's account reads

His career as an anti-Semitic agitator and terrorist began on April 4, 1920, when he and his followers went on a murderous rampage, attacking Jews on the street and looting Jewish stores. He was subsequently convicted by a military tribunal of inciting the anti-Semitic violence that had resulted in the killing of five Jews and the wounding of 211 others.

Sadly, the British—recognizing his status among the Palestinians—disregarded his record and appointed him to the prestigious post of grand mufti of Jerusalem in 1922, which made him both the religious and political leader of the Palestinian Arabs. Only two months after his appointment, his propaganda, including a new translation into Arabic of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, precipitated a second anti-Jewish riot in Palestine. On August 23, 1929, al-Husseini led a massacre of sixty Jews in Hebron and another forty-five in Safad.

.

(i)If Husseini personally led the murderous rampage on April 4, 1920 the article we have drafted fails to note it. Dalin says the Mufti personally helped kill Jews and loot their stores.

(ii) The British made him grand mufti in 1922. Two months after that, his propaganda, Dalin says, precipitated an anti-Jewish riot.(1922)

(iii) Dalin says on August 23, 1929, Husseini led a massacre of sixty Jews in Hebron and another forty-five in Safed.

Therefore the text in the article, as I pointed out long ago, is a personal synthesis of whoever wrote it, and distorts Dalin, as Dalin distorts history.

In Hebron on Aug 23,1929 59 Jews were killed or died, not 60 (64-65 were direct victims if you count wounded who later died), and in Safed, not on Aug 23, but on Aug 29, 18 Jews were killed, not 40. So much for Dalin's credibility as a reliable source.

The 'synthesis' of Dalin in the text is as follows. Dalin says the Mufti's propaganda led to a riot in 1922. He then says that (7 years later) the Mufti led the massacre in Hebron (there is no such conclusion in either the Shaw Report or the Mandate Commission's report. To 'lead' in English in these contexts means to 'be at the head' of a physical assault, to be personally present). The text as it stands stitches these two separate conclusions together violating either WP:OR or making an invalid Original Synthesis, to read now as:-

'After his appointment, al-Husayni's propaganda, including sponsoring a new translation into Arabic of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, led to the 1929 Palestine riots, including the 1929 Hebron massacre and the 1929 Safed massacre.

Dalin says after his appointment Husayni's propaganda led to a 1922 riot. He does not say those two events led to the 1929 riots. He says, further down, that Husayni led the Hebron riot (which happens to be ambiguous, and untrue).

A hint. The simplest solution is to throw out Dalin who is an incompetent, third-rate historian, and get a better source, of which there are over a dozen in the bibliography. Nishidani 21:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

what does this has to do with me ? Zeq 09:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are the most active editor in here. I have noted this stupid text several times, and neither you, Beit Or, or Armon (who gave the present link to it) have budged to remove it, and its muddled POV Original Synthesis. If you agree it falsifies the record, is from a third-rate historical hack in a two-bit college, and shouldn't be in here, tell me. And I will remove it myself. I have consistently had the courtesy to at least notify you all about the sloppy character of much of this material, and the reply is silence. Silence in such instances usually means assent to the text others object to. Nishidani 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon is directly responsible for the mess. [35]

He defended his edit against my attempt to get the rubbish off page here:

22:28, 26 October 2007 Armon (Talk | contribs) (45,526 bytes) (→The Mufti's role in the 1929 Palestine riots - Don't muzzle the sources especailly Dalin. Don't go off topic in order to "jusify" his incitement.) (undo)

Note 'muzzling sources' translates into keeping his own Original Synthesis on page against an editor who detected both the unreliability of the source he adduced, and the mess he made of that source. Armon refused to budge, you have his email. So perhaps you could iron the matter out. Nishidani 10:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not as active here as I wish. hopefully I will have more time. Zeq 13:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, just let me know whether you think this highly original synthesis of what Dalin wrote, or is assumed to have written, is a just synthesis or not. If you agree that Dalin's remarks have been grossly distorted, then I will save you the bother by excising the text myself. Nishidani 13:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need my presmission to edit this article. it is a free country. Zeq 14:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite true, but since you and several others revert collectively much of what I edit, and since you have asked often that changes to the page be vetted on this talk page beforehand, I am simply asking your opinion, as you requested, so that the edit I propose reflects consensus, and will not be subject to an edit war. This is also what good wiki editing asks for. So, are you agreed that the passage should be removed or not, on the several grounds I cited above? Nishidani 15:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I will, as always, evalute your edits after they are done. This is much simpler. Act acording to policy - that is what I do. It is a free country you can edit what you want . Zeq 20:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion. I have explained to Zeq the edit I propose. He reserves the right to express his judgement on that edit only when it is made, not before it is made. It is a free country certainly, to cancel edits that, as often on this page, are made with scruple and according to the best editorial pratices. You have a fine record in this. So at least I have obtained evidence that you ask that edits be discussed on the talk page before being posted (2) you refuse to make a call on those proposed edits as discussed on the talk page (3) you enjoy contradicting yourself. Nishidani 21:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

@ Nishidani, I suggest that you just make this well-documented edit.

@ Zeq, if you are not even willing to give your opinion on a proposal someone submits so politely to you, you have obviously forfeited any right to reject it later on. In your eagerness to link al-Husainy to Hitler you do not even bother to spell the name Hitler correctly (twice you included "Hitelr" in the article), which suggests that your lopsided political drive is a stronger motive than encyclopedical carefulness. Contrary to what you claimed, your reference to "Hitelr" in the lead is not in line with the version in the article so I will adjust it. Paul kuiper NL 00:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, I suggest that we do not keep indenting every response further and further. It makes reading only more difficult, and it is enough if replies are in turns indented and not indented.) Paul kuiper NL 00:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul, read Nashdani conclusion and you can see that as always, this is not about the article but another attempt by him/her to develop a personal argument with me. I decline to participate in such. He can say that " I refuse" and "that i contradict myself" and everything else. This is not a kindergarten you know. proving that I am wrong or right is not the issue here. There is no school teacher to judge who is the better student....(unless of course you would like to play this riole in a childish game that I refuse to take part in). Let me remind what I said many times: Focus on the article not on the editors....Zeq 04:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

PS I have not "fortified" any right to anything. It is a free country. He can edit and so can I. stop playing games and inventing rulles. Zeq 04:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For the third time,Zeq is the passage

'After his appointment, al-Husayni's propaganda, including sponsoring a new translation into Arabic of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, led to the 1929 Palestine riots, including the 1929 Hebron massacre and the 1929 Safed massacre.=David G. Dalin, Hitler’s Mufti, First Things (August/September 2005) [6]

a passage which in no way represents the source it relies on, a personal and erroneous synthesis of Dalin, and therefore to be removed?

This is only a 'childish game' because you refuse to reply to another editor's legitimate request for your judgement on a passage you have consistently, with Armon, reverted to. Since you support the text, I have documented why it violates Wiki rules, and ask you to make a call on my analysis. If you don't make that call, then your refusal constitutes uncooperative behaviour. Wiki is not a free country in the sense that anyone can do as he likes. As in all free countries, the freedom exercised is circumscribed by quite precise rules, and in this case, one of the rules is that no one is 'free' to insistently restore a text that comes from an unreliable source, and that falsifies the source by an unwarranted personal synthesis. If you want that text to stay in there, tell me, and I, personally, will leave it there. If you think the text has been shown to be flawed, then tell me, and I will edit it out. To ask this is not to play games, except in the sense that games are played by rules, and I wish you to make explicit what rules are behind your judgement on this passage, Wiki rules or Rafferty's rules? Nishidani 09:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. OK when i made that edit I was attempting to summarize what I'd read in the Dalin article. I don't think that this:
Only two months after his appointment, his propaganda, including a new translation into Arabic of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, precipitated a second anti-Jewish riot in Palestine. On August 23, 1929, al-Husseini led a massacre of sixty Jews in Hebron and another forty-five in Safad.
...and my edit:
After his appointment, al-Husayni's propaganda, including sponsoring a new translation into Arabic of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, led to the 1929 Palestine riots, including the 1929 Hebron massacre and the 1929 Safed massacre
...constitutes WP:SYNTH because Dalin is stating that his propaganda "precipitated" (or led to) a "second anti-Jewish riot" and that it didn't stop there.
As for your objections that Dalin is unreliable, he may have made a mistake in his numbers or he may be using different sources -I don't know. I do know it's not our job to argue with the sources because another WP rule is "verifiability not truth". It was published in an academic journal, and we aren't using those numbers anyway. That being said, if you have sources which contradict Dalin's assessment of the Mufti's role in the riots, please quote or link them here and we'll discuss them. <<-armon->> 11:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Calm down? Cool as a cucumber. You mistake my tone. I am, in Zeq's analogy, a professional scholar with decades of experience, who finds himself facing rowdy historical illiteracy at the gad-y'ladim level. Rather than shout at the children, one does well to exercise a good deal of patience, and show a capacity to explain in simple detail what the kids, in their enthusiasm, fail to understand. I'm afraid you are totally unconvincing on WP:SYNTH, and your reply is what is known as tendentious 'prevarication'. You have conflated two passages with 7al years difference, using the words 'led' indiscriminately, apart from the fact that Dalin is an incompetent historian since just in this opening section he gets names, dates, details skewed, and teaches at a very insignificant college. You objected to Laqueur, Schechtman, Morris, Sykes, Brenner whose works are acclaimed or frequently cited, and chose to showcase an incompetent historian's hysterical piece of propaganda, written clearly from memory, as that was published on a minor web site. Note that Dalin has done, unlike the scholars I mentioned, no original research. His field of competence, outside of his rabbinical background, is on the Papacy's attitude to the Jews in WW2.

I don't need sources to contradict Dalin's remarks, since his own paper self-destructs. Technically, if you have some experience with academic writing, it is for an incompetent historian to prove his arguments, not for a competent historian to waste his time disproving odd-ball amateurs. Dalin provides no sources himself to document his assertions, and they are contained in a paragraph that brims with demonstrably false 'evidence'. You like it,it fits your preconceptions of Arab 'fanaticism', so you defend it. I simply note the fact that it is seamed with error, a barely reputable source, and that your use of this material constitutes illegitimate synthesis, in that you conflate two separate statements to forge a causal link that is not in the original text. Why? I presume because you wish to frame Husayni as a unique overpowering 'leader' in a massacre, something which the Mandatory Commission of 1930, and the Shaw Report do not say. They variously exculpate him, or as in the former, charge him with some responsibility, along with many other leaders, and the facts in both those reports which adduce Jewish responsibility for the riots of 1929 are conveniently suppressed. The reason the Mandatory Commission seems to have disagreed with the Shaw Report was that it held a brief for the Balfour Declaration, obliged Britain, which was backtracking quickly, to fulfil its obligations over Arab resistance, and thought Arabs a feudal mob of oriental fanaticists, whose emergence from feudalism required the economic growth of Zionist investment to wake them out of their oriental slumber.

I will continue to comment on this hasbara team effort, and will edit only when I find a competent number of serious editors in here, ready to give us a scrupulously NPOV account of al Husayni in the context of those decades, from his early participation in a wide Arabic nationalist defence of their territory against an imperial design on it, to his later infatuation with Nazism. I would suggest in the meantime that you all take some time out Yehoshua Porath's The Palestinian Arab National Movement: 1929-1939,. It gives you one non-comicbook version of the context in which al-Husayni moved, and, unlike Dalin, Porath has done original research into the period Nishidani 12:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish state ; annihilitation of the Jew

I promised 2 sources : here the second.

• The first one was Tom Segev : One Palestine, complete, applauded by all historians from Shapira (see who she is) to Morris.
• Laqueur, who is tradionnal historian and specialist about Zionist writes that even if the documents was ambiguous about that, everybody knew that Zionism planned to establish a Jewish state and that is what all arab nationalists fought.

Concerning the annihilation of the Jews, what to say ?
-> All this is very funny : may I suggest to the pro-israeli fanatic team to take care of the pro-palestinian fanatic team acting on the causes of the 1948 exodus or on allegations of racism about Zionism and leave people work on these articles ??? :-)))
Alithien 09:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer to the edit on 'state' is as follows. The Balfour Declaration, and the subsequent implementation of the Sykes-Picot agreement under League of Nations Mandatory supervision, spoke of 'national home for the Jewish people' and not a state. The notion of statehood is, as far as I know, meticulously avoided in British papers and Mandatory documents for some decades. It is true that this was what Zionists thought would be the final shape of things. It is also true that they withheld explicitly using the term 'state' in negotiations with Britain over 1922, wary of the explosive implications in the use of that term publicly. In this they were opposed by Jabotinsky's revisionists who made no bones about the fact that the drive was for a fully constituted autonomous state, and not a 'national home'. The Arab nationalists were naturally opposed to both a state and a national home. But the article should reflect historical usage as evidenced by the Mandatory Power and the League of Nations Mandatory Commission, which, for example in 1930, explicitly dismissed the idea of a Jewish 'state' as a non-starter, and assigned that, in their view, misbegotten idea to a mere small school of revisionist Zionists. Regards Nishidani 10:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)