Talk:Amin al-Husseini

Archives

Talk:Amin al-Husayni/Archive 1 Talk:Amin al-Husayni/Archive 2 /Archive 3

---

Has anyone actually read the Mufti's book?

Is there an English or Hebrew translation? I can't read Arabic. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither can I, but I console myself that most people in here can't read English either. E.g. I've been watching this passage for some months.

'wrote articles for the first new newspaper to be established in Palestine, Suriyya al-Janubiyya (Southern Syria)'Nishidani (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you hinting here ? Is this something about the article (i.e. that palestine was never an independent state and considered part of Syria ?) or is it something about the editors of the article ? If it is about the editors - please spare us the details - we would much rather focus on the subject of the article. Zeq (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's simply about the ability to read English and correct mistakes. Once the obvious mistake is corrected, then the sentence can be rewritten to correct the factual error. One cannot focus on the subject of an article if one is incapable of understanding the simplest elements of prose style and indifferent to facts. Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

footnotes

I removed the missing footnotes banner, they are present 91.178.80.176 (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if we can focus on the disputes regarding this article

Now that most of the discussion has been archived, this space looks pretty peaceful. I am wondering if we can make a list of the points of dispute. This is what I remember:

1. The lead: should it say "National home blablabla" or "Jewish state"?
2. The first sentence of the section 1929 Palestine riots', specifically the explicit causal connection: "... al-Husayni's propaganda ... led to the 1929 Palestine riots, ..."
3. Evaluations of the Mufti's role in the 1929 riots, and specifically the position and validity of the Shaw commission.

Are there other specific areas of dispute that I have missed?

It is my impression that Nishidani has misgivings about the overall tenor of the article, specifically that it leaves the reader with a sense that the Mufti was and remains the hero of the Palestinian movement, the "Father of Palestinian Nationalism" (I am quoting myself from a previous post); and that this sense is incorrect and tends to taint the entire Palestinian movement with the stigma of Nazism. Nishidani, please confirm or correct.

Issues of overall tenor are hard to address, but if we can resolve all the textual issues, we might be on the way to removing the POV tag from the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are some of the salient points, and we can dispose of them rapidly if common sense and fidelity to standard methods prevail. You can add that a 'new newspaper' is not a particularly intelligent phrase, and that (contentwise) the passage containing it suggests the first Palestinian newspaper was published in 1919, when in fact the first Arabic paper, based in Haifa, came out in 1908. Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of dubiously sourced info

The statement "al-Husayni is alleged to have said, 'I declare a holy war, my Muslim brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!'" was sourced to Leonard Davis and M. Decter, published by the Near East Report. Near East Report is the publishing organ of AIPAC ("America's Pro-Israel Lobby"). Davis and Decter's book has virtually no documentation and no bibliography. It is a handbook for Israel lobbyists and activists, not a scholarly work. Midge Decter is a journalist, editorialist, and grand dame of America's neo-conservative movement. Leonard Davis (these days, he goes by Lenny Ben-David) was AIPAC's Director of Information until he accepted a post as Israel's Chief of Mission to the United States.

In summary, stop wasting our time with this crap, Armon. <eleland/talkedits> 23:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The information was restored with the addition of two references. The authors are an ultra-right talk-radio host and Internet columnist, and the esteemed author of "The complete idiot's guide to Jewish history and culture". That is closer to a willful insult than an attempt to address the serious lack of credibility attached to these allegations.

A simple question: when and where did al-Husayni say this? Where was it originally published or broadcast? The random "Masada 2000"-type websites which repeat it (often in variant phrasings) seem to agree it was in a Berlin propaganda broadcast, but are divided between 1941, 1942, and 1944. (Some date it to 1947 in Jerusalem, oddly.) The fact that nobody seems to know the details, or agree on the wording, points to an historical fabrication. <eleland/talkedits> 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

4 points: 1) The sentence clearly says "alleged". 2) Arguing with the sources like this is WP:OR based on a genetic fallacy 3) WP:V "verifiability not truth" and finally 4) Despite all that, if the quote was in fact "out of character" in any way, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. The guy was a Nazi collaborator and he said the same things in his Berlin radio broadcasts. <<-armon->> 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

1) The sentence clearly says "alleged", without making it clear that the allegations are made by unreliable partisans. 2a) Evaluation of source reliability and notoriety is a central task of Wikipedia editors and does not constitute original research. 2b) Your link to genetic fallacy is confusing at best. Please explain yourself more specifically. 3) Your link to WP:V is confusing, since you are quoting the pithy catch-phrase without explaining how it applies, or acknowledging that:

• All quotations and any challenged material should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
• Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions should be avoided.
• Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events or politically charged issues.

4) We all know he was an anti-Semitic fascist, but the statement "he said the same things in his Berlin radio broadcasts" is proof by assertion. If credible sources quote him saying the same thing, give us the credible sources and you can shut us up. <eleland/talkedits> 04:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Look eleland, the quote is cited and verifiable in that sense. Your theories about the sources' motivations and/or bias and especially your theory that it a fabrication is irrelevant unless you have evidence to back it up. <<-armon->> (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that antisemite and fascist are the right terms. Particularly the second one.
Idith Zertal, in Israel's Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood considers he would be better painted as a nationalist-religious fanatic.
NB: concerning quotes about the Mufti alleged antisemitism (or extremist views), many have been gathered here : [1].
Ceedjee 08:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, "anti-Semite" (or "antisemite") seems to be a reasonable conclusion. At the very least, he was willing to exploit anti-Semitic sentiments for his own purposes - both Arab antisemitism and Nazi antisemitism. If there's active debate on the subject we should summarize those opinions, with attribution, rather than trying to settle it ourselves. "Fascist" I'm not qualified to say. Maybe it's a blind spot but "fascist", "national-religious fanatic", etc all seem to blur together for me. Then again I have a hard time distinguishing the policies of some European national-conservative parties from fascism, so what do I know. <eleland/talkedits> 23:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Only on WP could we have an argument that a Nazi might not be an antisemite (rolling eyes) <<-armon->> (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And we are on wp. That is the problem.

As far as I know, all we could say is that he is pictured as an antisemite but I never found reliable sources (ie historians) who claim he was antisemite while eg Tom Segev in One Palestine, Complete tag several British soldiers as antisemite. Ceedjee (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But he wasn't a Nazi, at least not in the sense of being an NSDAP member. He was an ally of the Nazis who recruited Bosniak fighters against Communist partisans and attempted to secure German & Italian support for Arab revolution against Britain. That's roughly the same moral calculus that the Western powers made in allying with Stalin. One has to consider the "My enemy's enemy is my friend" factor here before just shouting "He was a Nazi!", which is proof by assertion. Maybe he was a Nazi and maybe he wasn't, but we aren't going to learn the truth by privileging wartime propaganda from the Haganah over scholarly sources.

As far as I can see, nobody has yet addressed the specific issues, namely the apparently serious flaws in the sourcing of the "Murder them all" quote, the "Kill the Jews wherever you find them" quote, and the "poison powder" claim. <eleland/talkedits> 20:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Is "M. Decter" supposed to be the famous Midge Decter? AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

More dubious sources

Well, the heading says "dubious", but that's a euphemism. The source is in fact blatantly unreliable. Moshe Pearlman, who "has directed Israel's information services and advised Premier David Ben-Gurion on public affairs" [2], writing about the Palestinians' leader during the immediate run-up to the Jewish-Arab civil war in Palestine, doesn't get to put words in Husayni's mouth, thank you very much. <eleland/talkedits> 04:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• here is a quote from a latter the Mufti wrote to the Germans asking them to elminate the "Jewish national homeland in Palestine" [3] Zeq 07:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

But that's a completely different quote. It isn't even an anti-Jewish quote. It's anti-Zionism. It's something a mainstream rabbi could have said in 1939! <eleland/talkedits> 07:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, I think you are confusing "reliable" with "biased". No one argues that Pearlman is a biased source. But, while many dispute the conclusions Pearlman reaches, I don't think anyone has challenged the facts that appear in his analysis. WP:Reliable Sources defines a reliable source as:

• The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
• Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.
• Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it.

Pearlman is all of those things. His books have undergone rigourous review by the scholarly community, and are often quoted in other scholarly works. Indeed, some of his books are considered important source material for any study of some of the subjects he dealt with.

If our article had quoted Pearlman in stating a conclusion about the Mufti - for example, stating that the Mufti was an antisemite - I would certainly agree that the quote would have to be accredited in the text, and not only in the footnote. However, adding the accreditation here suggests that you doubt that the Mufti actually said what he is quoted as saying. Such a challenge of fact seems unwarranted and would have to be supported by some indication that Pearlman fabricated facts that appear in his books - something I would be interested in seeing if you have such evidence.

Here is another example: Edward Said had a clear and openly stated bias about Middle Eastern affairs. But no one questions the quality of his scholarship, and to bracket statements of fact from Said's writings with comments such as you have added would be inappropriate. --Ravpapa 07:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are valid arguments, but I will need objective evidence about Pearlman's work before I can accept them. At least in the English language, he seems to be fairly obscure, and his work Mufti of Jerusalem not widely cited since the 1950s. He was a journalist and author but not a trained scholar. Phillip Mattar, Executive Director of the (pro-PLO, but respected) Institute for Palestine Studies, states that "The biographers of the Mufti ... often told us more about themselves than about him. They were written by Jewish nationalists, such as Moshe Pearlman ... who attempted to villify him and discredit his movement ... The accounts were so polemical that the historical al-Husayni and the movement he led were scarcely discernible."

In summary, all we verifiably know about him is that he was a Haganah spokesman and a public relations adviser to Ben Gurion. Please support your assertions. <eleland/talkedits> 07:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your response suggests that you are unfamiliar with Pearlman's work. He wrote at least 20 books on various subject concerning the Middle East, including one of the most important biographies of Ben Gurion. He served in senior roles in the Israeli government for 40 years, and is therefore not only an important chronicler of events, but also a first-hand source of primary importance. His works are cited frequently in scholarly journals (a quick Google search will find reviews of his work in journals published by Oxford University, University of Chicago, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, but there are surely more). His work is cited in two doctoral theses I am now reading on the Mufti.

None of the references I have read have cast aspersions on the validity of his data, though some do disagree with his point of view.

If the quote in question were out of character for the Mufti, if it were the only existing instance of a documented antisemitic statement, I would perhaps agree with your reticence to accept it as fact. But, as you well know, the Mufti himself made no secret of his views, and the quote in question is just one of many well-documented quotes on the subject.

I would like to take this issue a step further. Your edits appear to some extent to be an attempt to excise evidence of the Mufti's radicalism from the article. Nishidani at one point argued that the article (I am paraphrasing, Nishidani, please correct me if I am wrong) appeared to him to be an attempt to blacken the entire Palestinian national movement by presenting the Mufti as (a) a viscious antisemite and Nazi, and (b) the undisputed founder and leader of Palestinian nationalism. The first is true, but the second is not. Throughout his career, the Mufti, while the most visible of the Palestinian leaders, was always the subject of bitter opposition, and never enjoyed unchallenged popular support.

If we wish to avoid the impression that the article is slandering Palestinian nationalism, the way to do this is not by obfuscating the Mufti's positions, but by showing that they were not representative of the Palestinian national movement. The article makes almost no mention of this - for example, of the opposition of the Nashashibis, of Kawkji, of Abdullah. There are many Palestinian nationalists who have rejected the Mufti's pro-Nazi and antisemitic views, even while admiring the Mufti's dedication to his people.

In summary, the way to make the article balanced and informative is not to remove facts which might be offensive, but to add material which puts the life of the Mufti into a wider and more representative context. --Ravpapa 11:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely with Ravpapa. <<-armon->> (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not familiar with Lieutenant Colonel Pearlman's work, which is why I asked for evidence. I am of course aware that he wrote a large number of books, the best known being his biographical retrospective on Ben Gurion and his book on the trial of Eichmann. I have done the Google searches. I didn't find the information you're referencing. I found plenty of criticisms of Pearlman. He is often classed alongside the notorious fabricator Joseph Schechtman as someone who aimed to discredit al-Husayni. Even more sympathetic profilers agree that he tended toward rhetoric and appeal to emotion and wore his Zionist sympathies on his sleeve. In any case, he is one source, from 60 years ago in the midst of a civil war against Husayni's side. He states that Husayni made this statement in a Berlin Radio propaganda broadcast. Since the British and Americans would have been recording all such broadcasts for intelligence purposes, why is Pearlman the only person who seems to know about it?

One more interesting thing I found in my Google searches: The question of a very similar alleged Mufti quote from Pearlman was discussed in an ArbCom case, where one user identified it as "the core of the dispute". The users who kept trying to insert it were "cautioned to avoid using propagandistic sources". Hmmm... <eleland/talkedits> 12:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand from this post that you consider the claim that the Mufti was antisemitic and a Nazi to be a fabrication? --Ravpapa 14:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to what you may or may not understand, but it's not relevant to this discussion, which is about the reliability of a specific source for a specific quotation. <eleland/talkedits> 14:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In Israel's Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood , Idith Zertal explain how the Mufti has been exagerately pictured as antisemite. So, the answer to your question (Ravpapa) is indeed that this image has been, at least partly, fabricated. Ceedjee (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, but the real issue here is whether we can use a Haganah spokesman's propaganda tract from 1947, or an AIPAC's propaganda tract (they literally distribute it by the caseload), to put words in Husayni's mouth. If these quotes are documented and verifiable, there should be better sources available. <eleland/talkedits> 20:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My mind on this issue is that wp can introduce the controversy around Mufti's antisemitism. In that context and only in that one, could all these quotes be given.

So :

• if we jsut want to state that the Mufti was antisemite : no.
• if we develop the controversy around the image of the Mufti in Israeli historiography : yes.

Ceedjee (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should stick to discussing the mufti as viewed by sources. If there are sources - academic sources - who show his antisemitism we should have that. He aligned with the Nazis and his whole life worked against the jews - this is enouigh to call someone an antisemite. here are some academic data on the subject: http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/studies/vol35/Mallmann-Cuppers2.pdf

The view that Israel distorts the mufti image is that of a small group - not worthy of an enclopedic mention, most of the are here : http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n4p11_Okeefe.htmlZeq (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)

Why are we getting into this kind of a discussion? I raised objections to two specific quotes from two specific sources. I still haven't gotten any halfway convincing or even relevant answers. People are talking now about the broad sweep of al-Husayni's life and views. What about the two quotes and the sources? <eleland/talkedits> 04:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee: I am familiar with Idit Zertal's book, and I personally tend to agree with it. The Mufti is portrayed in Pearlman's book as a virulent antisemite. Pearlman, for example, pretty much ignores all the quotes where the Mufti explicitly distinguishes between Zionists, who come to evict him from his country, and all Jews.

But Zertal's book is a challenge to Pearlman's conclusions and premise, not to the quality of his scholarship. Zertal does not contend that Pearlman fabricates quotes, only that he presents only one side of the story.

There are two sides to this story. Both sides have been presented by reliable scholars who disagree. That is legitimate. The contention that Pearlman is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards for reliability is entirely an ad hominem argument, and not based on serious academic challenges to the quality of his scholarship. Nobody here has even seriously questioned whether the Mufti actually said the things he is quoted as saying - they have deleted the quote only because they do not like the political position or history of the person who wrote the book. The rejection of Pearlman as a reliable source because of his involvement in Israeli politics is like rejecting Churchill's account of World War II because he was prime minister at the time.

The rather bizarre consequence of the excision of quotes by Eliland and others is that this article on the Mufti - who spent his life publishing his views in speech and in writing - contains almost no quotes from the man himself. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

£Zertal refers to the israeli historiography and even sociology as a whole.

she just points out how the Mufti has been exagerately (and falsely) pictured as antisemite.

Among those who did so is Pearlman (she doen't cite or quote him).

But his collaboration to this process is the reason why Pearlman is not a reliable source to talk about the Mufti, given he collaborated on the building of this false image.

This is not a controversy between Pearlman and Zertal. This is a study of Zertal on Pearlman and his peers. So this is exactly what is needed for wp to prevent the use of Pearlman as a source. A scholar study taht states he is not reliable. To use this, we should find recent scholars who still defend this analysis of the ferously antisemite Mufti. (I wrote scholars).

So we should only use more recent analysis made out of this difficult context of the difficult making of Israel at the beginning of its existence.

Mattar and Elpeleg also talks about Mufti's fanatism and use of political violence that could be assimilated to antisemitism. Ceedjee (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you and I are saying pretty much the same thing. We agree that the Mufti's portrayal as an antisemite was exaggerated. We agree that Pearlman's conclusions and premises are one-sided. Pearlman supports this premise by choosing to present certain evidence (quotes of the Mufti saying nasty antisemitic things) and to ignore other evidence (quotes of the Mufti stating policies and positions which clearly distinguish between Jews and Zionists).

What that means to me is that we should not rely solely on Pearlman as an analysis of the Mufti's character. We should look to other sources - for example, Taggar's book (The Mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine Arab Politics 1930 - 1937) - to balance the picture.

But we are not talking here about presenting Pearlman's conclusions and premises. We are talking about citing a specific quote. No one that I know of has accused Pearlman of falsifying information to make his point. No one has accused him of being unreliable in his presentation of facts.

Moreover, if you accept Zertal's attack, why do you exempt scholars who wrote after her from unreliability? Plenty of current scholars (for example, Mallman and Cuppers) continue to contend that the Mufti was antisemitic. Should we discount their work also?

Controversy is part of life in academia. You don't just axe an entire branch of scholarship just because someone writes a book with a different slant. By Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source, which I cited above in this thread, there is no question that Pearlman is a reliable source. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Zertal does not attack anybody. Why do you picture her as doing so ? She is not Pappé and if you didn't find people who attacked Pearlman, I never read anything but positive reception concerning Zertal work (in comparison eg with Finkelstein's one on the same matter...)

That is a false symetry.

There is a second false symetry. I agree that controversy is part of life in academia.

But here, we don't have a controversy. We have a worked made in the past that is analysed to be false by current scholar with nobody -as far as I know- criticizing this. I mean : what Zertal writes about Mufti picturing is not controversed. With your parallelism we would have to use Galileo or even Ptolemee thesis in the astronomy articles.

If there is a controversy, it can be with more recent scholars. I don't have anything against this. On the contrary, that is a good solution.

For this subjet, I still think that Pearlman can be quoted but only as an illustration of Zerthal thesis about the way the Mufti is pictured. The article of Cuppers can be used to illustrate that even today, some scholars still go on considering the Mufti was a virulent antisemite or unless we can find a majority of current scholars -aware of Zertal work- stating that the Mufti was an virulent antisemite.

I don't state these doesn't exist but I didn't find them after 2 years being careful to take care to note anything precise on that subject.

Who are the scholar who today in 2008 would state that the Mufti was a virulent antisemite ?

Ceedjee (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

allied with hitler

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php here is a picture of him together with adolf hitler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.171.134 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Very dubiously sourced chemical warfare claim

All the details here about chemical attacks on Tel Aviv's water supply seem to track back to Bar-Zohar and Haber's The Quest for the Red Prince. Our citation is to Benyamin Korn at the David Wyman institute, who just tells us that "The details of their mission were first revealed in the 1983 book", then explains what Red Prince says. Wyman himself, as well as Wyman institute director Rafael Medoff seem to repeat the claim wherever they can (such as here in the organ of Israel's extremist religious settler community.) Alan Dershowitz actually claims that the wells were poisoned successfully and that the squad was under Husayni's direct command (maybe he parachuted in?). Yisrael Medad, a settler spokesman from the "Menachem Begin Heritage Center" said in a Jerusalem Post op-ed that Husyani "encouraged Arab agents to parachute into Mandate territories to poison the water." Etc, etc. Usually there's no source cited, but when a source is given, it's always Red Prince or Wyman repeating from Red Prince.

Here's how Korn describes Red Prince's authors:

Michael Bar-Zohar, a biographer of Ben-Gurion and Labor Party Knesset Member, and Eitan Haber, a journalist who became Yitzhak Rabin's closest aide and speechwriter when Rabin became prime minister.

Here's some of what Michael Rubner, a Professor Emeritus, of International Relations at Michigan State University said about Red Prince:

Because the book does not contain footnotes and lacks a bibliography, the reader is left to wonder about the identity and veracity of the sources on which this account is based.

This exceptional claim is supported by sources which are not only not exceptional, but not even reliable. I've noticed that it's also mentioned on (Collaboration during World War II#Arabs, Chemical warfare#World War II, and Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#WW2 and prior to formation of State of Israel. Is somebody on a campaign here? <eleland/talkedits> 20:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. you. Ceedjee (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Before continuing with Personal attacks let's focus on what acdemic good sources tell us about him. Melman Kuppers describe him as anti-semite. This is enough for me. They are historians. Zeq (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A Google search on "Melman Kuppers" provides no results whatsoever. There is a distinct danger of the encyclopedia being contaminated by references that are worthless. And that's even before the well-known smear by which critics of Israel are labelled anti-semitic with no evidence whatsoever. PR^talk 22:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This kind of pithy "non-responsive response" seems to indicate that you have no valid case for keeping the information besides the fact that you don't like al-Husayni. Or Palestinians generally? <eleland/talkedits> 19:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Geez, guys, let's try to keep on the subject here! We are talking about this chemical warfare claim. Keep the comments on that, hey?

This story, as repeated here and on David Wyman's website is really pretty unbelievable. Sabotage squads parachuted into Palestine? and landing in Jericho? Carrying a white powder that was later tested in a laboratory? Flitting about in parachutes was not done a lot in the Middle East in those days, as far as I know. Tactically, it wouldn't make a lot of sense - coming in by boat would be a lot simpler. Poisoning of water supplies was not, to the best of my knowledge, a terrorist method used in WWII. In fact, I don't think it has been used successfully anywhere in the world ever (I ignore cases of throwing dead animals into open wells). As far as I know, there were no forensic laboratories in Palestine in 1942, and precious little of any other kind of laboratory either.

The whole story, and the way it is told on Wyman's website, has the ring of fiction about it.

I think we should look for a contemporary or academic source for this story (maybe local newspapers? Davar? Palestine Post?) before using it. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The source is Bar Zohar who doesn't give his own indeed. And ?

It will stay in the article until somebody proves it is false as per wp:rules or until a specialist on the topic warns us it is not true.

You guys who doen't know anything about the topic but only come to direct topics in function of the current palestinian-israeli conflict should be kept far away from wikipedia.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

NB I just noticed that user:Ian Pitchford just corrected the article and didn't remove this information. That is enough for me. The case is close. Ceedjee (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

First, would you mind making an extra effort to write in clear English? I don't understand what your first sentence is meant to say.

Secondly, would you mind making an extra effort not to impugn the motives and insult the intelligence of your fellow editors?

Thirdly, simply rephrasing an obscure claim as an "allegation" or an "according to X, ..." may make it verifiably true, but it doesn't avoid the problem of putting WP:UNDUE weight on a possibly malicious claim from a quite obscure source. There are plenty of conspiracy theories about, say, Arik Sharon, but we don't stuff his biography full of them, either in "Sharon is an alien" form or in "According to Bob Crackpot, Sharon is an alien" form. If it's a significant claim relative to al-Husayni's life as a whole we can include it, even if it's false, but we need information about its significance. There is a lot of below-the-radar-screen chatter on blogs and partisan websites, and it should stay below the radar. <eleland/talkedits> 17:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the details but the basic story is generally held to be true. I understand the British intelligence report on the interrogation of two members of the sabotage team appears in The Arab War Effort: A Documented Account, New York, 1947, pp. 43-46. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Korn seems to think that "the details were first revealed" in 1983. Anyways I hope somebody has access to that source so we can see what it says. I still don't think that Red Prince filtered second-hand through Korn is a good enough source for a claim like this, especially when some of the details seem outlandish on first glance. This claim appears to be fairly obscure and not much discussed in the scholarly literature, although I have found it repeated in a number of partisan sources (Dershowitz, Washington Times, etc). It may be notable enough to mention but, at the same time, if historians don't take it seriously, we should not appear to take it seriously either. I'm just asking for verification that the basic story really is generally held to be true - not to mention verification that the Mufti had anything whatsoever to do with it. <eleland/talkedits> 17:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And it has been answered Bar Zohar is a reliable source. Ceedjee (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you persist in this? I've already pointed out that Bar Zohar's work was specifically criticized by academics "Because the book does not contain footnotes and lacks a bibliography, the reader is left to wonder about the identity and veracity of the sources on which this account is based," while you're just shouting "NUH-UH". This is not wikiality, we really do use policies and have discussion rather than just playing ostrich. <eleland/talkedits> 18:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A scholar criticized a book of Bar Zohar because he didn't give his sources but he didn't write what Bar Zohar stated was false.

change - the - tone - you - are - writing - to - me.

change your tone ! Ceedjee (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Medoff's paper - already cited - can be used as the source for this. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Medoff's letter to The Journal of Israeli History (published as "communications" rather than a full article) was in 1996; Medoff's colleague at the Wyman Institute states that "The details of their mission were first revealed in the 1983 book 'The Quest for the Red Prince'", and the name "Fayiz Bey Idrissi" given in Red Prince does not appear in any source that I can find except Red Prince, Korn's web posting, and a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors. The original source is Red Prince and it's unreliable. <eleland/talkedits> 19:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Medoff's contribution is a fully referenced paper on pages 317-333 of The Journal of Israeli History. I have it in front of me. Medoff cites the 1947 reprint of the Britsh intelligence report as his source. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I was going off the table of contents available at the journal's website, which seemed to label it as "communications." Does he say substantially the same thing as what we already have (esp. wrt the Mufti's role)? <eleland/talkedits> 19:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

1920

Mufti was sentenced to 10 years emprisonment after Nebi Musa riots. But I cannot find what he did exactly. (There are many references to what Aref al-Aref and Musa Qassem Husseini did) but what did the Mufti ? Ceedjee (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Palestine Police Force referred to these events as the "Jabotinsky riots"! --Ian Pitchford (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure ? Isn't something different that would have taken place 1 year earlier [4] ? Ceedjee (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you have requested the quote, here is one: "While a teacher in the Rashidiya school in Jerusalem, Haj Amin had incited the crowds during the Nabi Musa riots of 1920..." (Howard Sachar A History of Israel..., p. 170). Beit Or 13:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Jabotinsky was sentenced to 15 years for his role in organising Zionist demonstrations before Nebi Musa and for organising an armed militia. Both Zionists and Palestinian nationialists were trying to provoke incidents to their own advantage. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Off topic, Ian. Beit Or 14:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ian just gives more information. Nothing more. Ceedjee (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Beit Or.
I didn't really asked a quote but more information in fact.
Never mind. Let's keep this that way in the article. Ceedjee (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

According to E. Elat (Haj Amin el Husseini, Ex Mufti of Jerusalem (Tel Aviv 1968)), Hussayni was convicted by a secret military court of violation of paragraphs 32, 57, and 63 of the Ottoman code - all of which have to do with incitement to riot. Proceedings of the hearings - which were held with Hussayni himself in absentia - were never published.

Sir Robert Storrs, then Military Governor of Jerusalem, wrote, "The immediate fomenter of the Arab excesses had been one Haj Amin al Husseini... like most agitators, having incited the man in the street to violence and probable punishment, he fled." (Storrs, Orientations London 1937 p 388, cited in Taggar, The Mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine Arab Politics 1930 - 1937 (Garland Publishing, 1986)).

Hussayni at the time was active in the Nadi al Arabi, an early nationalist organization, which British officials felt was instrumental in inciting the violence. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ravpapa ! :-)

Ceedjee (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You've neglected to mention that Sir Robert Ronald Storrs was a puppet of the immigrants (who, at this stage, were still only some 10% of the population).

The Palin Report of 1920 (apparently suppressed because of Zionist Commission objections) p.32 tells how the Mayor of Jerusalem, Musa Kazim Pasha al-Husseini, had been present at a demonstration in March 1920. There is no evidence of what he acually did (much like the secret conviction of Husayni, in fact), but "the Zionists strongly resented his action, with the result that a letter was sent to him directly, signed by Mr David Yellin, head of the Zionist Commission in Palestine, practically dismissing him from his post". Subsequently al-Husseini was dismissed "without inquiry by Colonel Storrs, the Military Governor of Jerusalem" which "had a profound effect on his co-religionists, definitely confirming the conviction they had already formed from other evidence that the Civil Administration was the mere puppet of the Zionist Organization." Later, Storrs defended the sacking of the mayor to the new Zionist High Commissioner Herbert Samuel, saying that the Mayoralty of Jerusalem "is a two years office"; Storrs had appointed the ex-mayor in January 1918 and "every consideration had been accorded him but there had never been any question of retaining him over the statutory period". Storrs Papers, Pembroke College, Cambridge, Box no. III/2, Jerusalem 1920-1. (Cited Huneidi, "A Broken Trust", 2001).

Storrs being a puppet was unusual, because most of the rest of the military were profoundly irritated by the Zionists. eg Major General Bols, the last of the three military administrators, wrote (amongst much else) "that the Jewish idea of fair treatment implied treatment which was fair to the Jews, but not necessarily to the other party, and that his own authority and that of every department of his administration 'was impinged upon by the Zionist Commission'".[FO 371/5119 E 5237, 25 May 1920.] This state of affairs could not continue "without grave danger to the public peace" and without being detrimental to his administration. The Zionists were "bent on committing the temporary Military Administration to a partialist policy before the issue of the Mandate". It was "impossible to please partisans who officially claim nothing more than a National Home but in reality will be satisfied with nothing less than a Jewish State". "It is no use stating to the Moslem and Christian elements of the population that our declaration as to the maintenance of the 'status quo' made on our entry into Jerusalem, has been observed. Facts witness otherwise, the introduction of the Hebrew tongue as an official language, the setting up of a Jewish judicature, the whole fabric of Government of the Zionist Commission of which they are well aware, the special privileges given as regards travelling and movement to members of the Zionist Commission, has firmly and absolutely convinced the non-Jewish elements of our partiality[FO 371/5119 E 5237, 25 May 1920.]

Some of the above may belong in this article - but given the way it's already been hi-jacked - and in particular, the failure of admins to defend scholarship, I can't see the point of a bad tempered battle. I'm already muzzled and facing an indefinite block for attempting to put good information into the project. PR^talk 12:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Isnt it Ronald Storrs instead of Robert Storrs" ?

Tom Segev doesn't picture him the same way as you do.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it is Roland Storrs, that's my transcription error. Storrs was a second-tier figure compared with the two main targets of the Zionist Commission, Bols and Allenby. As Military Governor of Jerusalem, Storrs was in charge where the trouble broke out. He seems to have taken instructions from Weizmann and to have been a personal friend of the Russian revolutionary Jabotinsky. The latter, unlike Husayni, appears to have been actually guilty of something he knew to be illegal. If we're looking to improve the encyclopedia, you must tell me what Segev says about him. PR^talk 16:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ronald, not Roland !

Segev pictures him as a pro-British man who had sympathy for Zionism but less for Zionists leaving in Palestine and particularly the Zionist Commission (and so Weizmann).

He also says he had some admiration for Jabotinsky but that didn't prevent him from forbiding that he organised an armed militia.

Ceedjee (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Palin report and government papers of the time make it appear that Jabotinsky was embarked on a Bolshevik-style revolutionary process, and Ronald Storrs (sorry) had allowed him to build and train a small army, with guns. Storrs refused his goons official status for the first 2 days of the riots, then gave it to them. This attitude in quite stark contrast to the rest of the British military, which (at least once he'd been convicted) wanted Jabotinsky locked up for a very long time. Did Segev really accuse him of being pro-British? That would be a surprise! You must admit that dismissing the Arab mayor of Jerusalem, apparently at the behest of the immigrants (with no evidence against him that we know of) is quite breathtakingly partisan. PR^talk 00:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

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. 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).'. 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. 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)

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)

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 » [5]

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" [6] ?? Zeq (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think conclusion written by Philip MattarZvi 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: [7] 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: [8] 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: [9] - 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.[10] 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)

Nisahdini

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.

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)

Dalin

The text says Husayni sponsored a new translation of the Protocols in 1921. I know a Lebanese edition came out roughly at that time, not sponsored by Husayni. Checking the wiki page you get this for Arabic translations.

'In the 1920s, the Protocols occasionally appeared in the Arab polemics linking Zionism and Bolshevism. The first Arabic translations were made from the French by Arab Christians. The first translation was published in Raqib Sahyun, a periodical of the Roman Catholic community of Jerusalem, in 1926. Another translation made by an Arab Christian appeared in Cairo in 1927 or 1928, this time as a book. The first translation by an Arab Muslim was also published in Cairo, but only in 1951.[33]

Since Dalin's paper would score a C grade in any undergraduate course, if not indeed failed, you'd better start finding out where he got his idea about Husayni's sponsoring a new translation. May be true, of course. But Dalin is not a reliable source for the statement.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Dalin's book was not peer reviewed but is self published. It cannot be used to report facts (even lesse historical facts) but only analysis or minds and under special circumstances. Ceedjee (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)