Talk:Amin al-Husseini/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Why was this sourced section removed ?

The Mufti was in Berlin during the war, but later denied knowing of the Holocaust. Defendants at the Nuremberg trials, including Adolf Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny, accused him of having actively encouraged the extermination of European Jews. Eichmann himself enjoyed spreading what became known as the Sarona legend, according to which he was on intimate terms with al-Husseini. Reference -> Gerald Reitlinger, The Final Solution, (1953) Sphere Books, London 1973 p.27 This testimony was subsequently dismissed as without factual basis by the court examining the issue during Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem. 'The trial revealed only that all rumours about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin el Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded. (He had been introduced to the Mufti during an official reception, along with all other department heads).' Reference -> Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.(1963) Viking Press, New York 1965 p.13. Reference ->'Eichmann had, indeed, been sent to Palestine in 1937, but that was on office business at a time when he was not even a commissioned officer. Apparently it concerned the Ha'avara Agreement for Jewish immigration into Palestine from Germany. As for contacting the Arab rebels in Palestine, or their leader the Mufti, Eichmann was turned back by the British authorities at the Egyptian border. It is doubtful whether Eichmann made contact with the Mufti even in 1942, when the latter resided in Berlin. If this fallen idol makes an occasional appearance in Eichmann's office correspondence it is because Eichmann's superiors at the Foreign Office found the Mufti a very useful sacred cow, always to be invoked when the reception of Jewish refugees in Palestine was under discussion. Dieter Wisliceny even believed that Eichmann regarded the Mufti as a colleague in a muuch expanded post-war Final Solution.' G.Reitlinger, The Final Solution,ibid.pp.27-2. 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. Reference -> 'Hätte Erwin Rommel 1942 die Truppen seines Gegners, des britischen Feldmarschalls Montgomery, in Ägypten geschlagen und wäre anschließend bis nach Palästina vorgedrungen, hätte das Einsatzkommando den Auftrag erhalten, die Juden in Palästina zu töten. Das Einsatzkommando sollte nach dem Muster der NS-Einsätze in Osteuropa arbeiten; dabei waren hunderttausende von Juden in der Sowjetunion und anderen Ländern Osteuropas ermordet worden. Die Nationalsozialistischen Machthaber wollten sich die Deutschfreundlichkeit der palästinensischen Araber für ihre Pläne zunutze machen. 'Bedeutendster Kollaborateur der Nationalsozialisten und zugleich ein bedingungsloser Antimsemit auf arabischer Seit war Haj Amin el-Husseini, der Mufti von Jerusalem,' schreiben Mallmann und Cüppers. In seiner Person habe sich exemplarisch gezeigt, 'welch entscheidende Rolle der Judenhass im Projekt der deutsch-arabischen Verständigung einnahm.' El-Husseini habe unter anderem bei mehreren Treffen mit Adolf Eichmann Details der geplanten Morde festgelegt.'http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/aktuelles/presse/2006/36.html Zeq (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is indeed a strange destructive removal, apparently camouflaged as a "clean-up". An important source like Hannah Arendt should of course not be removed. What makes it even worse that it has been replaced by an attempt to brand al-Husayni rather than Adolf Hitler as the 'initiator' and 'instigator' of the holocaust on the Jews in Europe. As if Hitler needed Husayni to hate the Jews! Too ridiculous to be discussed seriously. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph is awfully written and relies largely on an unreliable source (Gerald Reitlinger, The Final Solution,) and a non-specialist (Hannah Arendt). By contrast, the cleaned-up version is sourced to Bernard Lewis, one of the leading scholars on the Middle East. The last sentence ("It should be noted that some recent research...") is still there and still needs unweaseling. Beit Or 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I understand also upon 2nd reading the version without it is by far more NPOV. I restored it. Zeq (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that this recent edit war is merely destructive. For one thing, it is well-known that Wisliceny`s statement about a connection between the Mufti and Eichmann was completely refuted at the Eichmann trial. The essential quote from Hannah Arendt`s Eichmann in Jerusalem:

"The trial revealed only that all rumours about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin el Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded. (He had been introduced to the Mufti during an official reception, along with all other department heads)."

is, of course, indispensable. And removing it seems to be just an attempt to falsify history for political reasons. Moreover, even if the the Wisliceny statement would heve been correct, to my knowledge it could not be used for claiming that the genocide on Jews in Europe was initiated by the Mufti rather than by Adolf Hitler as we all know it was. Labelling al-Husayni twice as the 'instigator' and the 'initiator' of the holocaust in Europe is really pathetic and an obvious forgery.

If such methods were to be accepted on the part of one-sided anti-Palestinian zealots who are obvously bent on maligning and vilifying al-Hussainy as much as possible, we should also accept the opposite on the part of some who take the opposite view, and could possibly remove the whole page or at least any reference to the Mufti`s collaboration with Germany.

@Beit Or, I am surprised that you are missing obvious chances in your drive to make the Mufti look like the source of all evil in the world. Why don`t you write that A. Hitler never existed, and that really the Mufti was in charge of Nazi-Germany? Of course, you should not make it too explicit, but somewhat concealed. To give you a suggestion, why don`t you insert this paragraph:

"There is not yet decisive consensus among scholars on the likelihood that Adolf Hitler was really a non-existent person, and merely a figment created by al-Husayni. While it seems certain that al-Husayni initiated and led the holocaust on millions of Jews in Europe, it cannot be ruled out that Hitler may also really have existed, and was, in a position subordinate to the Mufti, eagerly carrying out his orders."

Isn`t this a valuable tip-off for your efforts? Of course, responsible editors will continue to remove the nonsense, and aspire to keep the article serious. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

When did Hannah Arendt become the end all and be all of history? Why believe Eichman in 1961 over Wisliceny just after the war? Eichmann was in Israel, and knew that things would go worse for him if he admitted association with al-Husayni.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt is not a historian, citing her opinions on a historical issue is hardly appropriate. However, if you only added her to the scholars of scholars questioning Wisliceny's claims, that would be one thing, but you're restoring a badly written version that relies on unreliable sources. Your claim that the current version presents Wisliceny's testimony as fact does not hold water; I have the impression that you never even read it. Your suggestion to deny Hitler's existemce is basically trolling, a blockable offense. Beit Or 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of arguing the obvious, and I make only one further comment: you use the words "initiator of the final solution" and "instigator of the holocaust" for the Mufti while you fail to mention any serious source for this weird claim that not Hitler but the Mufti did this. At the same time you delete the important fact that the Eichmann trial showed there was no connection at all. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of you claiming Arendt is the be all and end of on the matter. The Eichmann trial proves nothing. The most inportant thing it proves is that al-Husayni was in Europe during the war, but to accept Eichmann's testimony as true I am reluctant to do. If a man will murder millions, why will he not lie?Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt was invited professor in different universities and was specialist in the sociology related with the Holocaust. She wrote a book titled Eichmann in Jerusalem that is used as reference by scholars. Her opinions on historical issues related to the Holocaust or this trial are therefore relevant. Particularly when (or rather given) they are not criticized.

Here is one : in her book « Eichmann in Jerusalem », p.13 she 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 » [1]

Ceedjee (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Argument accepted. I've restored Hannah Arendt. Beit Or 18:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Argument rejected, and I would have sliced it out again if it hadn't been done so already. A fringe theory that someone other than Hitler instigated the Holocaust is not to be taken seriously. Tarc (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Tarc, you or I didn't follow the discussion properly :-)

They were discussing this :

Hannah Arendt dismissed any connection between al-Husayni and Eichmann: "The trial revealed only that all rumours about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin el Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded. (He had been introduced to the Mufti during an official reception, along with all other department heads)."(ref)Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.(1963) Viking Press, New York 1965 p.13(/ref)

Which is what you say.

But this didn't prevent Annan Arendt to also write :

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 at the same page of the same book.

The Mufti didn't instigate the Holocaust. This is even less than a fringe theory among scholars.

But the idea that Hitler didn't instigate the Holocaust is a theory that has been widely debated among serious scholars (I don't talk about revisionnists) : see Functionalism versus intentionalism

And just for your information, when Benny Morris writes made by war, not by design about the Palestian exodus, he performs the same analysis as those would say functionalism, not intentionalism... Ceedjee (talk) 07:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should tell that to Beit Or, Zeq, and others who continuously try to insert a revision that begins with the sentence "During the Nuremberg trials, Adolf Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny accused al-Husayni of being the initiator of the Final Solution." which goes on to give serious undue weight to these charges. What they keep deleting is a revision that puts the charges in context, and provides serious sources that refute it completely. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh... I don't mind these polemics any more. :-)Ceedjee (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not entirely clear what Tarc calls "undue weight" in this context. The version that begind with "During the Nuremberg trials, Adolf Eichmann's deputy Dieter Wisliceny accused al-Husayni of being the initiator of the Final Solution." describes facts, i.e. Wisliceny's charges, as well as Eichmann and mufti's responses, then proceeds to describes the scholarly opinions on those charges. It seems that Tarc and especially Paul Kuiper are making straw man arguments: they first claim the version in question states as fact that it was al-Husseini who instigated the Holocaust and then proceed to conclude that the version is thus unacceptable. However, this is not what the text says, it doesn't even lend itself to such interpretation. Beit Or 20:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It contains the line, "Al-Husayni's role as the instigator of the Holocaust has been the subject of debates among scholars," and the rest is written in a similar vein. Many (most?) credible sources believe that al-Husayni had absolutely no role in instigating the Holocaust and probably did not even know about it, yet the article features trumped-up nonsense from the likes of Schectmann as if it's to be taken seriously. <eleland/talkedits> 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It is quite clear to others, beit or, not sure why you're struggling to understand the problem here. You and zeq attempt to give a fringe POV (mufti as instigator) equal footing to the established, mainstream POV that he was not. Tarc (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with Eleland and Tarc. For the record: this was the eighth time that Beit Or tried to insert this unsubstantiated nonsense of "Al-Husayni's role as the instigator of the Holocaust", for which not one credible source has been given. This is obviously a gross violation of Wikipedia rules. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know any scholar who would have assumed the Mufti was not aware of what was the fate of the Jews in Europe during WWII. On the contrary, Zvi Elpeleg (1993, p.73), concludes his chapter about the Mufti's « involvment in destruction of the Jews » in stating he was aware and even « delighted » by this. (The excerpt was given in the following section).
NB: Note Elpeleg has written a biography that critics consider to rehabilitate the Mufti as a major political figure in the struggle between Palestinian Nationalism and Zionism.
Eleland, which scholar(s) claim he was not aware of that ? Ceedjee (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this source not in the article

here is a quote from a latter the Mufti wrote to the Germans asking them to elminate the "Jewish national homeland in Palestine" [2] ?? Zeq (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think conclusion written by ~~Philip Mattar~~Zvi Elpeleg would be better :

(...) In any case, there is no doubt that Haj Amin's hatred was not limited to Zionism, but extended to Jews as such. His frequent, close contacts with leaders of the Nazi regime cannot have left Had Amin with any doubt as to the fate which awaited the Jews whose emigration was prevented by his efforts. 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. (Philip Mattar, The Mufti of Jerusalem : Al-Hajj Amin Al-Husseini and the Palestinian National MovementZvi Elpeleg, The Grand Mufti: Haj Amin Al-Hussaini, Founder of the Palestinian National Movement, Frank Cass Publishers, 1993, ISBN 0-7146-3432-8, p. 73).

Ceedjee (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try reading 'My Israel Question' Antony Lowenstein. It is an important read.

Extra source for references

Not sure if anybody who edits this article has read this book, The Forgotten Ally - Pierre van Paassen. It´s got some info on Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, I read it about 5-6 years ago so can´t remember all the details. I´m sure it could be useful though.GreyMech (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This web-site supports him - but doesn't conceal the fact that he was highly partisan and his career as a journalist was cut short by allegations of fraud. " short-lived Spanish Republic which in 1936 ... Spain also proved PvP's undoing as a newsman. Based on questionable but widely distributed allegations by Toronto's pro-Franco Catholic Register, of supposedly fraudulent reporting on the part of PvP, the Star's publisher, threatened with a boycott by Catholic subscribers, decided to fire its renowned newsman."

His later writings are ethno-specific in their praise and condemnation of peoples - it's unlikely anyone would consider him a reliable source to be used in articles. PR^talk 10:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is to "describe the controversy"

This edit: [3] prefer one POV on describing the controversy in an NPOV fashion. Zeq (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You've been talked down on this point so many times in past talk page sections above, why create another? Is your fringe POV going to suddenly gain consensus? Doubtful. Tarc (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

can you discuss the issue not the editor ? Zeq (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I believe the issue may be the editor. What do you want to discuss that hasn't already been discussed in previous talk page sections? Tarc (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why did you reverted to a version that include a POV instead a version that describe the controversy ? Zeq (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The version that I restored does not violate NPOV; yours does, as well as concerns of giving undue weight to fringe opinions. There's really nothing else new to say that has not already been said before, either by myself, Eleland, or Paul kuiper. If you need a fact refresher, see; Talk:Mohammad Amin al-Husayni#Why was this sourced section removed.3F. Tarc (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tarc, There are sources who disagree with the version that you putinto the article. my suggestion is to describe the controversy. so far you are removing this source: [4] from the article again and again. Do you claim this is not a WP:RS source ?

I'll try again, politly to explain NPOV:

On one hand there is your prefered POV on the other is this one:

Amin el-Husseini: Nazi Collaborator and Radical Jew-
Hater The most important collaborator with the Nazis on the Arab side, and, at the same time, a rabid antisemite, was Haj Amin el-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In his person, we can see exemplified the decisive role played by hatred for the Jews within the project of German- Arab cooperation. There are countless statements made by him during his lifetime that clearly articulate his antisemitic attitudes. For example, el-Husseini gave a talk on the occasion of the opening of the Islamic Central Institute in Berlin in 1942, which prototypically reflects his recurrent patterns of interpretation. On the one hand, he argued along fundamentalist Islamic lines, emphasizing: “Among the most bitter enemies of the Muslims, who for ages have professed their hostility and everywhere make use of spite and cunning in their encounter with Muslims, are the Jews and their accessories.” On the other hand, the Mufti was not only a religious fanatic. In order to disseminate hatred of the Jews, he also resorted to the central antisemitic stereotypes of Nazi ideology, as another passage from this lecture shows: In England and America, Jewish influence is dominant. It is the same Jewish influence that lurks behind godless communism, which is inimical to all religions and fundamental principles. That Jewish influence is what has incited the peoples, plunging them into this destructive war of attrition, whose tragic fate benefits the Jews and only them. The Jews are the inveterate enemies of the Muslims, along with their allies the British, the Americans and the Bolsheviks.59 Such passages indicate that el-Husseini and his rhetoric should not be characterized solely along one-dimensional lines as an Arab nationalist. Especially when he was concerned with eliminating the Jewish presence in Palestine or elsewhere, the Grand Mufti was a National Socialist and Islamic fundamentalist at one and the same time.

Along with his diverse contacts with the Italians, the German Foreign
Office, and the Wehrmacht, it can be proven that the Mufti also had direct communication with the Judenreferat in the RSHA. A short time after his first meeting with Himmler, el-Husseini paid a visit to the Section Head IV B 4, Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann. On this occasion (the visit must have been the end of 1941, or the beginning of 1942), Eichmann provided his much-impressed guest with an intensive look at the current state of the “Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe” by the Third Reich, and illustrated this with numerous statistics and maps. For his part, the Grand Mufti informed Eichmann that he had already received approval from Himmler that, after the Axis victory, one of the advisors on Jewish affairs from Eichmann’s section would go with him to Jerusalem in order to come to practical grips with the virulent questions still remaining there. Eichmann, who was very impressed by the Mufti, subsequently met with him a number of times.84 However, the basic questions pertaining to the “Jewish Question” in Palestine appeared to have been clarified already during their first meeting. This can be safely assumed, since el-Husseini later turned directly
to Eichmann’s competent associate to discuss practical matters

There is more at this source....

sources for the above:

57 Wiedergabe Bericht V-Mann [reproduced report, liaison] “Cuno I” v. 6.8.1942, BAMA, RH 2/1764.

58 Notiz Ettel/AA (undated/end of 1942), PAAA, R 27325; on Erwin Ettel, see Hans- Jürgen Döscher, Das Auswärtige Amt im Dritten Reich. Diplomatie im Schatten der “Endlösung” (Berlin: Siedler, 1987), pp. 168ff.; Frank Bajohr: “‘Im übrigen handle ich so, wie mein Gewissen es mir als Nationalsozialist vorschreibt’. Erwin Ettel — vom SS-Brigadeführer zum außenpolitischen Redakteur der ZEIT,” in Matthäus and Mallmann, eds., Deutsche, Juden, Völkermord, pp. 241–255.

59 Rede Mufti zur Eröffnung des Islamischen Zentralinstituts v. 18.12.1942, PAAA, R 27327; see Matthias Küntzel, “Von Zeesen bis Beirut. Nationalsozialismus und Antisemitismus in der arabischen Welt,” in Doron Rabinovici, Ulrich Speck, and Natan Sznaider, eds., Neuer Antisemitismus? Eine globale Debatte (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2004), pp. 271–293.

60 Biographical: Simon Wiesenthal, Großmufti — Großagent der Achse (Salzburg-Wien: Ried, 1947); Joseph B. Schechtman, The Mufti and the Fuehrer. The Rise and Fall of Haj Amin el-Husseini (New York and London: Thomas Yoseloff, 1965); Taysir Jbara, Palestinian Leader Hajj Amin Al-Husayni Mufti of Jerusalem (Princeton: Kingston Press, 1985); Klaus Gensicke, Der Mufti von Jerusalem, Amin el-Husseini, und die Nationalsozialisten (Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang, 1988); Philip Mattar, The Mufti of Jerusalem. Al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni and the Palestinian National Movement (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988); Zvi Elpeleg, The Grand Mufti. Haj Amin al-Hussaini, Founder of the Palestinian National Movement (London and Portland: Frank Cass, 1993); playing down the gravity of the figure: Rainer Zimmer-Winkel, ed., Eine umstrittene Figur: Hadj Amin al-Husseini — Mufti von Jerusalem (Trier: Aphorisma, 1999); Gerhard Höpp, ed., Mufti-Papiere. Briefe, Memoranden, Reden und Aufrufe Amin al-Husainis aus dem Exil, 1940–1945 (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 2001).

61 On Arab politics in Palestine, see John Marlowe, Rebellion in Palestine (London: Cresset Press, 1946); idem, The Seat of Pilate. An Account of the Palestine Mandate (London: Cresset Press, 1959); Albert M. Hyamson, Palestine under the Mandate 1920–1948 (London: Methuen, 1950); Yehoshua Porath, The Emergence of the Palestinian- Arab National Movement. Vol. 1: 1918–1929 (London: Frank Cass, 1974); idem, The Palestinian Arab National Movement. Vol. 2: 1929–1939. From Riots to Rebellion (London: Frank Cass, 1977); idem, In Search of Arab Unity 1930–1945 (London: Frank Cass, 1986); Tom Bowden, “The Politics of the Arab Rebellion in Palestine 1936–39,” Middle Eastern Studies, 11(1975), pp. 147–174; Bernard Wasserstein, The British in Palestine. The Mandatory Government and the Arab-Jewish Conflict 1917–1929 (London: Royal Historical Society, 1978); Michael J. Cohen, Palestine: Retreat from the Mandate. The Making of British Policy, 1936–45 (London: Paul Elek, 1978); idem, The Origins and Evolution of the Arab-Zionist Conflict (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987); idem and Martin Kolinsky, eds., Britain and the Middle East in the 1930s. Security Problems, 1935–1939 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1992); Ann Mosely Lesch, Arab Politics in Palestine, 1917–1939. The Frustration of a Nationalist Movement (Ithaca-London: Cornell University Press, 1979); David Th. Schiller, Palästinenser zwischen Terrorismus und Diplomatie. Die paramilitärische palästinensische Nationalbewegung von 1918 bis 1981 (Munich: Bernard & Graefe, 1982); Uri M. Kupferschmidt, The Supreme Muslim Council. Islam under the British Mandate for Palestine (Leiden: Brill, 1987); Issa Khalaf, Politics in Palestine. Arab Factionalism and Social Disintegration 1939–1948 (New York: State University of New York Press, 1991). 62 Gensicke, Der Mufti von Jerusalem, pp. 30–33.

clearly, scholarly sources. Zeq (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not specially from specialists.

Nevertheless, where is it written he was the initiator of the final solution ? Ceedjee (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the essence of of the problem that many, many editoes have had with Zeq over the years; he finds a reliable source and shoves it into the article on that basis alone, forgetting that there are other rules and policies around here. Whether it is trying to insert a reliably sourced yet fringe/minority POV here, or to insert WP:BLP-violating material into Inayat Bunglawala awhile back, it is always the same modus operandi...follow one rule, damn the rest. And that blockquote up above is the epitome of NPOV. How any writer/source can fill so much invective into such a small space and expect to be taken seriously is amazing. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we way past discussing "the problem that many, many editoes have had with Zeq over the years" so I will just answer Ceedjee:

The issue is more was he aware and was he in contact with Eichman. WE have two main sources: One is Eichman helper in the Nurnberg trial 1945 and the 2nd one is what Eichman told to his own defense in the 1961 trial. Eichman at that point said he only met the Mufti once. This is the controvesy and this is what need to be described. I am more than open to changing the specific words that claim that "he was the instigator" - we should only use what sources say and not add our own. On the other hand we should clearly describe what Eichman said in the trial vs what his helper said. Zeq (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Concering the fact he was aware of the Holocaust and that what he was doing cost lives to Jews, I think that what Elpeleg writes (see just 2 sections here above) is extremely clear and relevant.

He is one of recent biographer of the Mufti and is a reference on the topic. Ceedjee (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A former Israeli ambassador? Please. if that's the most impartial source we can find, we're not doing our jobs. -- Kendrick7^talk —Preceding comment was added at 18:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we should use as impartial and as scholarly sources as we can find. Zeq (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendirck7, why don't you try to find "critics" of Elpeleg's book instead ?

Ceedjee (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ya know, L. Paul Bremer can spend the next 20 or 30 years studying at American University, but I still won't, at the end of the day, trust him to write an impartial biography of Saddam Hussein. Why treat this occupation governor any different? Yes, I know the reviews are laudatory, but, surprise surprise, his ultimate conclusion is just what the country who employed him for much of his life has always wanted people to believe. Oh, gee, Husayni was delighted by the Holocaust. Is there real evidence for this statement, or, at the end of the day, could old Colonel Elpeleg, like the leopard, simply not change his spots? -- Kendrick7^talk 11:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not "his conclusion".

It is the conclusion of the 6 pages chapter dedicated to the topic, among many other things stated about the Mufti.

One should be particularly crazy to have written a book, picturing the Mufti as a "out-of-common" man, just to be sure one day wikipedian editors will quote him giving his mind about the Mufti involvment in the Holocaust.

And if you read carefully what he writes : he just says that the Mufti knew what was happening and was pleased with this and I never read anybody else who would state the contrary. Ceedjee (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly and this is what we should use. Zeq (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As a usurper of the subject, he's hopelessly tainted, but as long as we make clear who's opinion is being put forth, I don't have a problem with using this. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I answer a former question on your talk page. Ceedjee (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not understanding the issue here. It seems clear that pretty much all reliable sources agree that al-Husayni had relations with the Nazi government, and met with Eichmann. Also, please do not recommend poisoning the well in articles, it's bad writing and violates Wikipedia:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"records show"

The claim that "records show that "Eichmann provided his much-impressed guest with an intensive look at the current state of the 'Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe..." is sourced to a Yad Vashem-hosted monograph which cites Dieter Wisliceny's testimony. But the older version which Tarc has been reverting back to says that "Wisliceny accused [the Mufti] of having actively encouraged the extermination of European Jews. This testimony was subsequently dismissed as without factual basis by the court examining the issue during Eichmann's 1961 trial..." which one would think is relevant. <eleland/talkedits> 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The prior version emphasizes that dismissal of the evidence, yes, it brings up the charges and then knocks them down. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ardent version of the trial is not supported by the verdict: [5] - we should simply quote the source (verdict) and not ardent interpretation of it. Mufti met Eichmann more than once - that much is clear and the court did accpted Wisliceny testimony from Nurnburg. Zeq (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Using Arednt as a source

having investigated it further, there is no doubt Arednt raise valid philiosofical issues such as : "Was eichmann a monster or just a clark doing his job" (In the final analysis, she agreed that Eichmann deserved to be executed, but she did not see him as a monster). While valid philosophical questions the fact that we now see that her description of the trial is not supported by the verdict leads me to think that we can not use her as an historical source. She is a philosofer not an historian and we should include in this article only the best and most qualified people on the subject of the Mufti - not people who had some philosophical agenda to grind using Eichmann as an example. Zeq (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So a philosopher is more eminently qualified to comment on history than a historian? Intriguing. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

less so. Zeq (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Arednt claims about the trial do not fit the final judgment of the case. We can not use her as source. She is not an historian. She is a philosopher and had an axe to grind. Zeq (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

► Zeq, who is "Ardent"??? You have used this name seven times now on this page and in your edit summaries. If you mean Hannah Arendt, I see that in your latest revert you were at least kind enough to save the quote from her in the refefence, thanks for this. I hope this is finally settled now.

Not settled. I did not revrted. You are the one reverting. She is not an historian and thus we should not be using her as source. Zeq (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

However, if your comments are indeed about her, they miss the point. The important thing is that she attended the whole Eichmann trial and wrote an important and much revered book about it. And what "axe to grind" had she? Certainly she had no reason to exonerate the Mufti. As Ceejee wrote above, she wrote in the same book:

"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."

What cannot possibly be accepted is your addition: "Records show that Eichmann provided his much-impressed guest.. " etc. As Eleland and Tarc have pointed out above, the 'records' you refer to are only a Yad Vashem text which does not do anything else than citing the Wisliceny statement. And worse: it aggravates the words of this statement (for instance; instead of 'duly impressed' it says 'much impressed'). You are wrong on several other counts:

1. You keep calling Wisliceny "One defendant at the Nuremberg trials", which he was not, he stood trial later on in Czechoslovakia. It is just that in Nurnberg he confirmed (partially, with "reservations") a statement written by a witness Steiner who quoted him.

2. Eichmann denied Wisliceny`s statement and said he was introduced to the Mufti only once at at reception with many others. Your statement "but the Judges did not accept this denial" is simply untrue. The Jeruzalem Court said only that they considered Eichmann`s statement that he had met the Mufti at a reception "a partial admission". The judgement did NOT question the correctness of Eichmann`s statement. Moreover, the opinion of the Israeli judges is, of course, by no means the only thing to go by. You keep repeating that Hannah Arendt is not a historian, nor are indeed the judges of an Israeli court.

So you prefer to accept the view of an philosopher - because she attended the whole trial but not the Judges ? I wonder if they too attended the whole trial.... Zeq (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We all agree that the Mufti had developed a hatred of Jews and sympathized with Nazi Germany. To my knowledge, noone has denied this. However, this is not an excuse for revising history. We just should state FACTS as accurately as possible. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Paul: Facts I agree we must go by facts. Aredent description of the trial does not fit the verdict. At all. It is the judges who decide on facts - not a philosopher who had a thesis to defend. We need to take her out of this article. Zeq (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We have now reached at least one understanding between us - which is that the Mufti had "hatred of Jews and sympathized with Nazi Germany" - I will add this to lead. Zeq (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You both don't have the right to debate about the reliability of Annah Arendt. If you have a relevant or notorious analysis you have to add this in the article at this right place with its due:weight but you have no competence to decide to get rid of her analysis on the basis she would be a philosopher or whatever.

I remind you both that you are not here to defend a pov or to defend a community and you don't represent anybody. I remind you also that Wikipedia is not a place of negocation. Compromise is not used in that sense.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No I think you mis an important point. IN such article we should strive to use the best sources. This is an historic subject and thus academic sources - historians - are the sources we should use if they are available. If She was the only source about the trial - yes we could use her - but this trial was covered by many and we also have the words of the judges. Zeq (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No. I didn't miss anything.

Arendt is a reliable source and an internationaly recognized expert on the subject.

Respect NPoV and add all the material you have on a subject.

"This is an historic subject and thus academic sources - historians - are the sources we should use if they are available".

Don't forget to use them in all articles and to try to get them. Ceedjee (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking for more details

In his biography of the Mufti, Philip Mattar writes (Page 149) : "The four cases of political violence in 1920, 1921, 1929, and 1933 were not revolts, (...) They were localized spontaneous riots that resulted in no sustained (...)"
I get this from google.books but cannot get more. Would someone have his book ? Could you give me more information about what he writes exactly ? I also read that Mattar writes that the Mufti was not accused of any involvment by Palin Commission. This should be in that book. Could someone check ? Thank you Ceedjee (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see the whole page, and the next one.[6] Try that link. I dunno how gbooks decides who sees what, or if resetting your cookies would help, or if logging in with a secondary account helps, etc. For now, I'm kinda too typed out to reproduce this by hand. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much !

That is crazy. I don't even have access to the content of the book even with your link.

I will try to proceed to way you suggest. Gbooks is quite strange !

Ceedjee (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Postwar

He still remained basically the single pre-eminent Palestinan public political personality without significant challenge until 1964 (when Ahmad Shuqeiri was pushed forward by Nasser); not sure why the article kind of plays this down... AnonMoos (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani

I am not going to argue with you if few news papaers did or did not say that people claim "the wall is ours". You may not know it but the wall is on the outside and below the Haram al-Sharif. In any case the British concluded that he spread false accusations about the jews taking over the whole Haram by force. Please don't try to again change facts which have long been established and don't confuse between the wall and other atreas in Jerusalem.Zeq (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Zqe,

The Zionist commission have tried as soon as 1919 to buy the Wall to the Waqf.

Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete reports (in details) that it was to get the support of the Orthodox Jewish community who was anti-Zionists.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't arge here about "ownership" he made false accusations about intent to destroy the Haram. Please self-revert your unjustified revert which has nothing to do with the issue you have raised in talk. Zeq (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Zqe,

I reverted the word "false". So what. Another pilpul ? Ceedjee (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this your answer to my serious request ? Zeq (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What was your request ? Ceedjee (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That you self-revert or proof that the Mufti made correct accusations when he claimed the jews "intent to destroy the Haram". Zeq (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How could have he said that Jews intent to destroy the Haram ? He died in the seventies. I don't understand what you mean ??? Ceedjee (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please simply explain why you removed the word - based on which source ? If you think the word was placed there with no source - restore it and add a "fact-tag". You must edit according to policy Zeq (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not easy to follow, Zeq. You always ask something different.

So... To answer you (once again) : because, Tom Segev in One Palestine, Complete, pp.303 and 304 explains that the mufti didn't make false accusations but accusations and he explains why all arabs were convinced that the Jews intended to destroy the Mosque. Note that Nishidani already explained this to you. So what do you want Zeq ?Ceedjee (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not what Segev writes. Do you have a quote in which Segev says so ? if so please post it. Nishadini refer to another issue (did they say the wall is ours or not is not relevant to the Mufti claim that the Jews will destroy haram). As I indicated to Nishadini even today we have the situation in which the Haram stands and the wall is in Jewish hands - thuse having the wall is mutually exclusive from any danger to the Haram standing. Nishadini tries to confuse the issue and hope you can provide the actual quote that prove your claim that the Mufti did not made false accusation. If you don't have this proof - please self revert. Zeq (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is what he writes. pp.303-304. And Walter Sachar, in The History of Zionism explain roughly the same. Do you claim I lie ? Please, go to a library and check by yourself. Ceedjee (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

.Zeq .This fact is not disputed, as Ceedjee himself can amply document. You removed some months ago, in violation of Wiki rules on RS, my full documentation on the matter. I have read the British reports, and your reference to them is simplistic and one-sided. The distinction you make looks disingenuous, in that under Ottoman law the Waqf had rights over the Wall, rights contested by many Jews. Later historians are unanimous. Don't assume I do not know anything about the geography of the Wall: I have been there.Nishidani (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

.Zeq ps.You write:-'You may not know it but the wall is on the outside and below the Haram al-Sharif. In any case the British concluded that he spread false accusations about the jews taking over the whole Haram by force.'

Before the League of Nations Mandatory Committee, referring to the Shaw Report, it is stated:

'Mr. LUKE wished at the outset to explain the nature of the Wailing Wall. The Wall against which the Jews had been accustomed for centuries to go and pray at all times throughout the year was the western exterior wall of the old Temple enclosure, and as such was a part of the Haram esh Sherif, which was one of the holy places referred to in Article 13 of the mandate; it was part of the Haram Waqf. The pavement on which the Jews stood in order to pray against the Wall was a part of another Moslem Waqf, not one of the holy places covered by Article 13 of the mandate, but to a certain extent also Moslem religious property, in that it was a part of the Abu Madian Waqf. In other words, it was Moslem religious property without being a sacred shrine. The initial difficulty therefore existed that for centuries past Jews had carried on the practice of praying at this place which, from the point of view of ownership, belonged to Moslems, not to private Moslem owners but to Moslem ecclesiastical or pious foundations.

This is limpid prose in English. If you have trouble with it, please ask for linguistic clarifications. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishadini, has the jews tried to destroy Haram ? that is what he accused tham off and that is a false. AS for "ownership" of the wall - it is good you bring this is up as this was one of the Mufti new ideas. in any case the key-word falsly needs to be restored.Zeq (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq I would warmly commend you to remind yourself that Wikipedia articles are not written by discussants, who debate their private views (and you are requesting me to enter into a debate about issues not pertinent to the text under consideration). It is about following historical sources of high quality in order to establish the best neutral account of a subject. You must be quite aware that over the several years of the period under review, numerous claims and counter-claims were made by both parties. You cannot arbitrarily select one (which you fail to document), not germane to the passage, and then distort an official report in order to brand everything that al-Husayni said as 'false'. You have no right to use the word 'false' in an NPOV article, since as it stands it is a personal editorial judgement. Some Jewish authorities did protest that they had no intention of claiming the wall, as al-Husayni accused them of doing. Other Jews actively pushed for the assertion of Jewish rights on the Wall (see Walter Laqueur, History of Zionism pp.255ff. Perhaps you should read the Hebrew edition, where he documents that Ze'ev Jabotinsky's Betar movement frequently and publicly asked for exactly what al-Husayni said Zionists wanted, ('The Wall is Ours') and he concludes, regarding such provocative slogans that played a role in exciting partisan passions in the late 1920s:

'‘The weakest part of Jabotinsky’s doctrine was no doubt his assumption that Zionism was bound to remain morally unassailable, whatever the means applied. In their transfer to Palestine Jabotinsky’s views lost much of their sophistication and moderation, and served as the ideological justification for primitive and chauvinistic slogans which helped to poison Arab-Jewish relations.'p.257

This, as well as similar comments by other strongly pro-Zionist historians, admit openly that both sides had groups which made inflammatory statements. Amin al-Husayni didn't talk in a vacuum: in making several accusations, he was speaking with full knowledge of what groups like Betar were doing (much to the disgruntlement of Orthodox, and ultra-Orthodox traditional Jewish communities), i.e. pressing for Jewish rights over what was Moslem property.

As to control of the wall, it was not this particular mufti's 'new idea'. The wall, please reread the quote, was under Ottoman law Muslem property, and recognized as legitimately theirs by the Mandatory authorities.

p.s. you'd better get a better source than Dalin. That will have to go out. He is a specialist in Jewish-Papal affairs, a rabbi with tenure in a third-rate Catholic University, and has done no original research on the area. The paper you cite is from a fringe site, and is chock-a-block full of the most elementary errors, suggesting Dalin just wrote up his remarks mainly by using Internet propaganda sources.Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, can you relate to the issue at hand - the false accusation ? Zeq (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already related it to the issue at hand. Please reread, slowly, what I wrote above. You haven't replied to it. I am not your work-horse. And please don't reinsert 'falsely' until you have a reliable source or two for this. Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq The text ran:'Al-Husayni had falsely accused the Jews of planning to take possession of the Western Wall of Jerusalem and tearing down the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Jewish National Council in Palestine, in an open letter dated November 1928, denied that this was the case.[11]'

A denial by the Jewish National Council does not constitute proof that what al-Husayni alleged was 'false'. It merely means according to that Council, his accusation was false. According to recent historians, his accusation about intentions to take possession of the wall was grounded in real claims publicly made by Betar activists at the time (Laqueur History of Zionism pp.255f. on 'The Wall is Ours') Q.E.D.Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This means nothing as the current reality show the wall is indeed in Jewish hands and the haram is not destroyed. So no Q.E.D. for you and please self revert as you have proved nothing about the intentions (nither did the Mufti. His accusations were false.) Zeq (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishadini again confuse the wall (the Jewish holy site) and the Haram (the Muslim holi site) - they are not the same place although they are indeed close . The discussion here is not about "ownership" of the wall (is the wall part of the haram or not) but about the claim of the Mufti that the jews going to destroy the Haram. Zeq (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we have to have the Al-Aqsa mosque mentioned, but there is no question that the immigrants were set on seizing the Western Wall, at a minimum. Other than Jabotinsky, they pretty much all wanted Palestine as Jewish as England was English. PR^talk 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq. Many times in our discussions, you have shown an inability to understand English. This is an English encyclopedia. Unless you conduct your side of the discussion in comprehensible English that respects your interlocutor's remarks, then one is left with this impression, that either you don't know enough English, or you pretend not to understand because you dislike any evidence which counters what you personally believe is the case.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Zqe, I know perfectly where it the Wall, Al-Aqsa and where the 3rd Temple is expected to be built. And in 1929, situation was such that Arabs believe that the

2 educated contributors with good knowledge of the issues explained this to you. You go too far. You are now is full no-respect of WP:AGF. Please, buy books and the topic and read them. Ceedjee (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What I know, and what you think about 1929 has nothing to do with the issue. None have you have so far brought a source which claim that the Mufti accusations about the jews going to destroy the muslim temple were in any way correct. Zeq (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq, do you understand the concept behind "verifiability, not truth" ? Whether the accusations are true or not is immaterial; we're talking about his actions and what accusations he made, not passing judgment on them. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree with you and this is why everything Nishadani brought here is irelevant. What we need to include is what sources say about te Mufti not (as Nishdani is trying) to prove that the Mufti was right (or wrong). Zeq (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you agree, then we agree that there is no need to insert the word "falsely" in there. Thank you, and let's move on. Tarc (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not, again, proving the Mufti is right. I am documenting that some of his accusations were based on fears that in part arose from remarks and acts by Jewish people (Laqueur, Benvenisti). You apparently believe that a bio of Amin must ignore historical context to be NPOV. You will allow that his inflammatory speeches influenced Arabs to riot. You disallow comments that note that his remarks were influenced by Jewish declarations and acts. In pushing for that distinction as a non-wiki criterio for evaluating what can, and cannot be edited into the article, you show your bias. You want a Zionist caricature, not an comprehensive NPOV narrative. Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

'The discussion here is not about "ownership" of the wall (is the wall part of the haram or not) but about the claim of the Mufti that the jews going to destroy the Haram.'

If that is your problem,Zeq, I suppose the following citation will resolve your anxieties. Amin had grounds for believing not only that the Wailing Wall (Betar activists, Doar Hayom articles) was considered by Jews as 'theirs', but that, since prestigious rabbis were also on record as claiming the Jews would eventually take over the Temple Mount, the Haram itself was in danger.

Rabbi Kook had preached as early as 1920:'The Temple Mount is Israel’s holy place, and even should it be under the hand of others for long days and periods of time, it will finally come into our hands . .' , and this influenced Amin's belief in a plot by Zionists to wrest the whole of the haram from Muslim control. See Meron Benvenisti ‘’City of Stone: The Hidden History of Jerusalem,” University of California 1996 pp.77ff.

I.e., the Mufti read events according to remarks like this, and naturally assumed that if Kook's belief were translated into practice, and the Al-Aqsa mosque taken over, it would be turned back into the Third Temple, i.e. altered from being a Muslim shrine to the earlier Jewish temple. I don't approve of the Mufti, but your attempts to make him out to be a completely irrational fanatic, hallucinating 'false things' is a vulgar distortion of a very complex series of incidents. I hope we can now move on, and edit the text adequately.Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishadani, You keep bringing your own interpreratation into the discussion. What Kook said and how it infulance the mind of Husayni are two facts that you connected together but that connection is simply Original research.

What we need is a source which either say that the Mufti accusations are correct (i.e. the jews by moving around the chairs on the west wall plaza below were planning to destroy the muslim temples on top of the mountain) or that those accusations are simply false (since even today 80 years later the jews have not destroyed the muslim temple.

I hope you understand that I value your scholarship, just please find relevant sources not the one that you make the connection between facts that other scholars did not. Zeq (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid again you do not appear to understand the simple distinction between reasoning about a piece of evidence on the talk page, and supplying a reliably source remark on the article page. My interventions on the article conform to strict criteria governing evidence, and have nothing to do with 'my interpretations', which, if I give them, take place in talking here.

You accuse me of making a 'connection' (WP:OR) between Kook's remark (one of many) and the remarks Amin made about Jewish intentions. I'm afraid you are not familiar with the literature. It is Benvenisti who makes this connection:-

'A Palestinian leader, the Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini, took Rabbi Kook’s yearning to return to the Mount with the advent of the messiah and turned it into a concrete political plot. He stated in 1925 that “the weeping of the Jews beside the Wall and their kisses (of its stones) do not arise from their love for the Wall itself, but from their concealed aspirations to take control of the Haram a-Sharif (Temple Mount)as everyone knows.' p.78

Perhaps again you do not quite grasp what some English verbs imply or mean. This remark occurs immediately after the passage I quoted earlier. 'To take' here means 'interpret'. I.e. Benvenisti says Kook's yearning to return to the Mount (glossing the earlier it will finally come into our hands) was interpreted by a fellow cleric, as much a leader of Arab religious feeling as Kook was a leader of Ashkenazi Jewish orthodoxy, to signify a plot was underway, that the Jews intended to take the Mount. That is how Benvenisti puts it. I, as reader, humbly accept his point. If you know the inside history of Kook's theology, and the influence of his son on those terrorists who tried to blow up the haram, and terrorize Palestinians to leave their own land (Hebron is a focal point), you will see that Kook was the mirror of Amin, i.e. religious leaders with a fanatical theological cast of mind, confusing theology with nationalism, and cooking up a potent brew that has caused countless deaths on either side Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nisaahdani, First let me ask you not to comment on me, my ability as editor, my english etc... Focus on the subject. Second, the quote from Benbensiti is acceptable:

'A Palestinian leader, the Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini, took Rabbi Kook’s yearning to return to the Mount with the advent of the messiah and turned it into a concrete political plot. He stated in 1925 that “the weeping of the Jews beside the Wall and their kisses (of its stones) do not arise from their love for the Wall itself, but from their concealed aspirations to take control of the Haram a-Sharif (Temple Mount)as everyone knows.' p.78

Your own interopratation of that quote is OR.

I hope this can settle the discussion. Please stop connecting or interpreting other sources. The sources speak very clearly and are in no need for your additional OR in connecting sevrtal sources. When connection between facts is done -please use only what the sources decide is connected not your own. Zeq (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No I will refer at times to the language problem because I take you in good faith, but find that what you do lends itself to a suspicion of bad faith, since it is often incomprehensible, and therefore I attribute the difficulties to your lack of precise knowledge of English.

So please don't as it does not serve any purpose. If I have limitataions they are in writing not in understanding so rest a sure I understand everything unless I will ask for your help in explaining. Let's stop making it an issue. Zeq (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Point two. You have a habit of saying (a) please revert (b) you are doing OR, etc., and preaching about what I should or should not do re sources, that I'm confusing my ideas with other people's. I find this funny, because I've been writing articles and books for forty years, and no one but people like yourself in wiki seems to find what I write abuses normal rules for assessing evidence and drawing conclusions. By all means keep up the 'humongous' pressure with your nannyish 'please' do this and please do that. It makes a wry smile form on an old man's face. One must be tolerant of the young, and amateurs Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OR is indeed a problem. Please edit according to policy and only use what the sources say. You tend to connect few things beyond what the sources say. I have pointed that out to you more than once. Stick to sources not to your OR which takes several sources and connect facts which the sources did not. If you want to do that you should be able to find a publisher, publish your own work made out of compositions that other sources ignored their connections and I am sure we can cite your work as source. Until such time please avoid doing this. Wikipedia is not a place for OR. Zeq (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I find remarks like this: "By all means keep up the 'humongous' pressure with your nannyish 'please' do this and please do that. It makes a wry smile form on an old man's face. One must be tolerant of the young, and amateurs" condesending and disrespectfull of your fellow editors. You have no idea about my age or other and please avoid making more comments on me. I find this is not creating the colborative atmosphere that each of us as editors deserve. As for the books you wrote over the last 40 years - I am sure we can use them as reference if they are relevant but if they are not mentioning that you wrote books does not add or remove anything from the burden on you to edit here only according to policy - including NPA and OR. Zeq (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq To collaborate you must understand what those who collaborate with you are saying. So, let us end this silly altercation. Try to parse precisely the meaning of, for example, what I write, and do refrain from misunderstanding it, and then saying from what you have misunderstood that I must be infringing on some Wiki rule. I mentioned my experience simply because your language of admonition, to native English ears, inadvertently on your part, sounds nannyish, and that cannot help strike an old man as funny, particularly when the remonstration comes from someone without professional training in historical writing, which is not absolutely necessary, but does help. Those who have it don't frig about with the Wiki rule book. They know by instinct how to write articles that are balanced, based on close interpretation of respectable sources. So, in short, drop this jejune refrain about WP:OR. :)Nishidani (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the evidence that the Muslims had very good reason for thinking that the Western Wall was to be seized. I can see from the evidence above that Husseini had some reason (likely good) for thinking that the whole mosque was to be seized.

Hence, it can only be totally unjustified to imply that Husseini's fears were unjustified and his allegations false. If the denial of these claims needs to be included (which may be necessary, I'm not sure), it must not be made to appear satisfactory or convincing. PR^talk 21:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeq has tried to edit in a ref. and Eleland rightly struck it out, as it is unreadable in English,('The Mufti took Jewish yearning to the site of the Jewish temple and turned it into a concrete political plot. In 1925 the Mufti stated that: "the weeping of the Jews beside the Wall and their kisses (of its stones) do not arise from their love for the Wall itself, but from their(i.e. the jews) concealed aspirations to take control of the Haram a-Sharif (Temple Mount)". ') and distorts the source, eliminating what Benveniste says about the Kook-AlHussayni connection. I have no particular interest in pushing the point Benveniste makes. I cited the material here simply to show, by one example of many available, how badly partisan the text reads, since it eliminates all circumstantial evidence (much as Jabotinsky's role in, and sentence as a result of, the 1920 is invisible (Zionist agitation) whereas Amin's sentence for his role in the same riots is highlighted. The whole page suffers from this vice. (Amin was nonetheless an inflammatory irresponsible incompetent man, who bears a good deal of responsibility for subsequent tragedies. To say that, and yet contextualize it in the milieu of what Arabs took to be an incipient Zionist appropriation of their land, does in no way diminish his lethal culpability, where that is evidenced by ther record)Nishidani (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nishadani, I will respond only to the subject matter. Your continued response about my english or your attempts to charterize me - those are personal attacks and must be stopped. We have policies in this encyclopedia and I must ask that you honor them. If yoy can not, maybe since you are clearly a scholar - you should publish your OR else where, (you can even write books on me is this subject is of such interst to you) and I am sure we can use your published work as source.
I have found benvenishti book and in it he makes clear what you neglected to quote: That Rabbi Kook actually forbid jews from going into the temple mount itself (the place where the Haram al-sharif is) and only described in his words the prophecy for the future times when the messiah will arrive. On the other hand Benvensthi clearly describe the Mufti as exploited the holi places far more powerfull that nationalistic sloagns. He goes further to describe how the Muslims (under Husseini) used the Haram (a holi place) as a place to hide weapons and wanted people - such as murders fleeing the police.
Benvensiti goes further to describe the Mufti as one of those who hid in the Haram during the revolty he lead and describe his nightly escape from the Haram to Beirut - the word he uses is "flee" .
I suggest you keep on benveneshti - a good book that explain the Muslims misatkes - not just about the yearning but how the Mufti mistakes had cost the Palestinians dearly in destroying their leadership. Thank you for pointing out this book - indeed a good source. We just need to make sure we stick to what the source say and not try (like you did) to add OR on top of it. Zeq (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

PS the mulsim provocation of 1929 are described in page 80 of that book - hopefully, since you have editted the 1929 riots article in the past you can include the complete story as it is described by benvennisti. If not don't worry I can do that. Zeq (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

'We have policies in this encyclopedia and I must ask that you honor them.

This is an English encyclopedia, and those who contribute to it should not mar it by so many errors of syntax, grammar and orthography that they require consistent editorial overhauling. Since you do have a problem, whatever you wish to edit in, should be vetted by a competent native speaker before you actually do edit the article. It would save us considerable time.

You insistently say I violate WP:OR. There is no evidence for this claim, the 'evidence' you allude to is not my research but simply my paraphrase, for your benefit, of what scholarly texts you are nunfamiliar with, are saying. I attribute your consistent misapprehensions about WP:OR to your inability to understand English, not to bad faith, since you confuse me with the people I quote, or paraphrase.

To the text.I am quite familiar with the history of rabbinical disputes about whether Jews may or may not set foot on what is the Temple Mount, from Kook down to Shlomo Goren's proposals to blow up the Moslem area in 1967. Benvenisti simply contextualizes Amin's behaviour as an interpretation of what in fact Rabbi Kook said. Kook said one day Jews would possess the Temple Mount, and Amin took this to mean that the various bids to buy the site from the Waqf, or to modify traditional arrangements at the Wall, were signs of a creeping set of measures that would, incrementally, lead to Jewish possession of the Moslem area. It is quite simple. We do not have to justify Kook or Amin, we simply note that Benvenisti explains Amin's behaviour as influenced by Jewish statements that the Temple of the Mount would in the future be Jewish. That fact explains in part why he then interpreted all Jewish attempts to modify the status quo as part of a plan. This is not my OR. This is what Benvenisti writes. I would suggest also that you revert you edit at 1929 Palestinian riots. It is poorly phrased, and wholly POV, since it ignores the chronology.Nishidani (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. I am glad we are discussing the text. We should indeed stick to the text and avoid giving too much interpretation beyond what the text dows not provide. The text clearly say that the Mufti took the yearning "and turned it into a concrete political plot" - that is what the source say. As for NPOV: The whole point in wikipedia is that there is more than one view - so if you have a source which give a different account - be sure to bring this source so that we have both POVs - this is how NPOV is achived. Zeq (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand. Some editors come here to write their POV, selectively using the records, as you have just done with the matter I supplied from Benvenisti, and then arguing with all other editors, as if their edits reflected, ipso facto the opposed POV. Some editors Zeq, do not edit according to their POV. They examine the historical record, and put in everything relevant to the page that is reliably sourced. Thus I have added substantial amounts to the Nazi record of Amin, not because I have a POV about him being a Nazi, but simply because in those years the documents say he joined forces with the Nazis. Likewise, I add material showing Amin was reacting to real Zionist pressures to expropriate a land that was predominantly Arab, and reading their modifications of customary law regarding the Wall and the Temple as signs of a plot to take over Muslim holy places, because that is what reliable historical works, even Zionist ones, register. You however, months ago, erased RS sources on Jewish provocations because they do not fit your POV, and for no other reasons. All editors are obliged to control their POV, and strive to make a text NPOV. Good editors must keep an eye on their own bias, and rein it in. By pushing yours, and censoring everything else that does not fit your schema, you are suppressing precisely the material which allows us to achieve a NPOV article.

I have a POV but do not find it necessary to edit according to that personal POV. I am interested in the complete record, not, as you evidently are, only in the Zionist account, which regards Arab attempts to resist colonization as inspired by nothing more than fanatic antisemitism. Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid writing about "some editors" and please do not bring up something that occured "months ago" unless it is relevant and you have the diffs. As for NPOV: The whole point in wikipedia is that there is more than one view - so if you have a source which give a different account - be sure to bring this source so that we have both POVs - this is how NPOV is achived. I am all for using different sources to get to NPOV. Zeq (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Benvenisti, Segev, Morris, Laqueur all have POVs, but they give both sides' versions, notwithstanding their POV. To edit well means to take cognisance of everything a reliable source says, not just what you like about it personally. What you have just written in your edit ignores everything written about the circumstances by pro-Zionist historians. I.e. your edits suppress information that does not fit your POV. You reply- Of course, but it is up to others, with a different POV, to add the material I ignore-. This means that you edit expecting others to fill in the lacunae created by your bias. That is irresponsible, sir, and bad editing. It would be far simpler if you simply gave all the information provided by pro-Zionist editors. Tutto qua.Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am editing using sources at my disposal. In this specific case you have pointed out a source and I used it. next you reverted my edits. I am not going into more meta-discussions with you on how editing should be done. I suggest you edit to the best of your understanding istead of teaching others how to edit. Zeq (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

talk The edit I have just made is from memory, and a mere sketch. It is intended as an NPOV statement, i.e., it shows both sides. As an impromptu sketch it needs work done on it, one could be more specific and cite the 1925, and 1928 incidents in more detail, and then give a detailed chronology (already supplied however by other wiki pages) for the background to the riots of 1929. You may like to add, for example, the exact words of al-Husayni's contemptuous dismissal of Jewish prayer dated to 1925 and mentioned by Benvenisti.I will be busy off line, but ask you to consider this as a mere attempt at a balanced structure for the conflict, which can then be finessed with more detail, as sources allow. Nishidani (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[7] Thank you for the self revert. No need to appologize as nothing here is personal. I am glad we are going by what the sources say. Zeq (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)