Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 3

Comment on the Mufti quotation

All of the above is interesting, but peripheral. To justify keeping the quotation I think you should demonstrate either that (a) It's (probably) true and has been sourced to a speech given on DATE X by Dr NAME in SOURCE, or (b) It's (probably) false, but was widely circulated and believed to be true at the time according to Prof NAME in SOURCE. Looking at the quotation and taking nothing else into consideration I'd say it's fabricated because of the use of the word "murder". Surely, if the Mufti was the genocidal maniac he's said to have been he would have used a word that did not imply any criminal intent, e.g. "kill". For historical interest I do know of a relevant quotation from this period:

Mufti's Warning On Palestine Clash "Bound To Occur", The Times, Wednesday, 10 September, 1947; pg. 4; Issue 50862; col B.

The Arabs hold no evil intentions towards anybody; and they will treat all foreign communities in the same way as such communities are treated treated in England and in America".

There's another from 31 March, 1948 circulated at the UN and promising a fight "with chivalry towards their opponents and with regard to the safety of foreign residents". These quotations aren't famous. --Ian Pitchford ^{(t) | (c) | (bias)} 15:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not an adequate response to these issues. First, whether actually made or not, the attributed quotation is highly relevant to any complete article about human knowledge/belief about the 1948 War. If you think it is provably false, present your evidence. If I could prove it to be true (beyond presenting a clear rationale for believing it to be likely that it was said plus presenting a published work that is very frequently referenced in this regard), I would do so.

However, whether or not something can be proven true or false, if it is commonly believed and is almost universally known of by anyone in the field and has had significant impact on the understanding of the phenomenon, then that is a fact that belongs in an article. Of course, the dispute about whether or not the quotation was accurately reported or fabricated could be included in the article (the quotation does not have to be presented as a fact, though the belief and/or debate about the quotation is surely an important fact).

However, you cannot delete the quotation because you personally question the use of the word "murder" or because "the Mufti wouldn't speak that way" unless you can find some external source that raises these concerns. As far as I can see, these concerns are Original Research as no one has referenced anyone outside this debate who raised these doubts. And, I find it absolutely shocking to hear it stated that "he wouldn't talk that way," as if anyone in this debate has any basis for knowing (with apparent certainty!) how he would talk in Arabic to Muslims he was trying to rally to go to war. Again, I refer you to the speech by the Muslim cleric (that was broadcast on Palestinian TV) and the comments I presented above by the Mufti of Jerusalem during the period of the Oslo Accords (from the Boston Globe). Just as people universally present different things to different groups, it is a profoundly well-established fact that certain Palestinian leaders have said one thing to their followers in Arabic and another for public consumption in the larger world. (Again, see Benny Morris on the Mufti whose quotation is in question.) Because there has been no adequate response to these issues---and no response at all from the deleter---I again am putting back the quotation. Kriegman 04:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ian listed some perfectly reasonable (actually, rather minimal) requirements for this quotation to become acceptable but you don't seem to be interested. Instead of writing reams of irrelevancies, you should be in a good library looking for this quotation in a respectible source. You won't get anywhere just be being stubborn. --Zero 04:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I presented a good reference that you decided was not a good reference. The "reams of irrelevancies" are discussions of issues related to why something more than your whim should be the basis for deciding that the reference was not good. And there has been no response at all to a clear argument for including a mention of the quotation (even if there were some basis to include a question of its veracity) in any well-rounded article on this topic. Kriegman 04:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

"Myths and Facts" is a well-known propaganda tract begun in the 1960s by the Israeli government and continued by various political organizations. It does not consistute a respectible source for anything. The last thing we need here is quotations that are only sourced to such publications. --Zero 05:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

All right! Finally a response to one of the issues that was asked about in my first response to you. But even if such a publication should be discounted as "propaganda," you are still ignoring the other point I keep raising. How about a response to it? Indeed, if it is believed that this "quotation" was invented and promulgated by the Israeli government or related political organizations, then this too should be mentioned in a discussion of this other point. But the quotation and the widespread belief about its veracity (as well as any significant doubt about it) simply cannot be ignored. Kriegman 05:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The website in questions may be extremely pro-Israeli but that doesn't exactly mean it is false. People quote Finkelstein, Counterpunch, and Robert Fisk which all have clearly stated and obvious motives and political views. Just because someone believe this or that is an idiotic reason to completley discredit them, what matters is whether there is cause to believe that they are outright lying which there really is not in this case. Most neutral sources wouldn't report it anyways because they want to avoid controversy but that doesn't mean the quote should not be included in the article as long as we make it clear that is coming from the Israeli side.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 05:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Quotations have to have sources. Myths and Facts did not hear the Mufti themselves so they are not a source at all. It needs a citation that can be traced back to the origin (not necessarily in one step). The same would go for something that appears in Counterpunch without any references. It is not an issue of bias, it is an issue of knowing the facts. Your last sentence does not apply. We quote opinions from the Israeli side when we can find the source of the opinion. This is not a statement of opinion but a claim about the facts. --Zero 05:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this ends up being very simple: is the quote real or not? I have spent some time at various points debunking some anti-Jewish quotes (see Rabbi Emmanuel Rabinovich), and some false quotes from Jewish history (see Abrabanel's response to the Alhambra Decree) and it is clear that if the veracity of a quote is doubted by people who are well-informed on the subject, then every effort should be made to trace it back to its source. I have spent awhile trying to hunt down the origin of this quote, as have Zero and others, checking every source I can find, either scholarly or newspaper articles, and there seems to be no confirming evidence for it that I can locate yet. That makes the quote extremely suspicious in my eyes, since I would expect to find this in some of the stuff written about the Mufti by somebody. There is no doubt the Mufti was not the nicest guy, and he could have said something like this to somebody, but there just isn't enough evidence that he has, in the face of objections. Including all the qualifiers ("the Mufti said, according to some, altough others dispute") makes the phrase pretty meaningless. Lets try to find a confirming source before we use it. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not think it is that simple. First of all, the notion that an authoritative source needs to have heard the quotation in question (Zero) is ... strange (at best). There are numerous authoritative sources on quotations (including standard encyclopedias) written by people who never heard the quotations in question and based on references to the reports of people who never heard the quotation. Who heard Archimedes exclaim "Eureka?" The chain of hearsay that is involved in most quotations of any age is so long that it is nothing more than "the game of telephone," reference to which is typically made precisely because of the how clearly the game illustrates the unreliability of hearsay. Still, there are ways in which we feel reasonably sure that a quotation is legitimate (one of which is to be able to trace a chain of information back to people who actually heard the quotation) and/or should be treated as such. Whether or not Archimedes said "Eureka" is not the issue. It is part of human knowledge/belief that he said it and that is, after all, what an encyclopedia reports.

Secondly, the "meaninglessness" of the "Mufti said ... (although others dispute it)" is completely non-responsive to the issue of including an alleged remark that has a significant impact on historical understanding. Yes, saying that "Kriegman said it rained last Thursday" should not be included because it is both irrelevant and unverified. But verifiable or not, the quotation in question is ANYTHING but irrelevant: It has become part of the folklore, the background belief for one entire side in this conflict (as well as for much of the rest of the world). While I find it telling that the other side does not challenge the veracity of the statement (suggesting to me that it was common knowledge that the Mufti made such statements back when the claim was originally made and people were embarrassed by him and tried to distance themselves from him, and thus no one even thought to challenge the reported quotation at a time when people who heard the Mufti could be consulted), that too is not the point.

The notion that "we use it" as in "Lets try to find a confirming source before we use it." is the problem. We don't use it; the quotation has already been used. Widely. We don't decide if it is of significance based on whether or not we can find a source that claims to have heard the statement---and zero would probably discount it if an "Israeli biased" publication referenced such auditors---and satisfies his notion about the existence of a "confirming source." In contrast to whether or not we use it (in an article based on whether we think it is confirmable), its significance in the conflict has already been decided by its widespread use and influence.

We either note its existence, impact, and verifiability (or lack thereof), or we write an incomplete article that---apparently for political reasons (e.g., Pitchford, who apparently bends over backward to avoid anything biased toward Israel and whose recent edits all contribute toward improving the portrayal of Palestinian victimization [which doesn't mean his edits are wrong], doesn't think he would have used the word "murder")---is not allowed to include this important fact shaping human understanding of and beliefs about the 1948 War (i.e., the belief that Mufti made this statement). Kriegman 14:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You have misunderstood. You don't have to take political considerations into account to appreciate that people don't generally consider themselves "murderers" or advocates of "murder" (a crime) even if they do support killing (something that can be justified) -- that's why the quotation looks fake. I couldn't imagine Bush saying "murder the terorrists, murder them all" or Blair saying "murder the Iraqi insurgents, murder them all," although of course both have supported the killing of terorists and insurgents. If you can establish that scholarly sources support the accuracy and/or relevance of the quotation then of course you should include it in the article. --Ian Pitchford ^{(t) | (c) | (bias)} 15:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

But Bush and Blair---as destructive as they may be and even if their actions cause more human suffering---were not personally involved in recruiting Muslims to engage in genocidal action on behalf of the Nazis (in Bosnia? I forget). Neither one had such a vile reputation that no one appears to trust them. And neither one is in the middle of a battle zone needing to rally their troops in a desperate battle (they are safely ensconced far from the scene and in control of powerful forces). So the comparison is far from a good one. Indeed, I still find it quite telling that when the allegation was made about the quotation and in the years that followed when those who had direct experience of the Mufti were available, there was no clear counterclaim from those who were typically present and able to hear him speak. Be that as it may, listen to the cleric I keep presenting the link to. Look at the words of the more recent Mufti. The alleged quotation is not that far off. Now find me another President or Prime Minister who spoke like any of those three. No, the comparison is poor. Kriegman 22:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand Ian's reasoning and consider it very well put, however I do not think the situations are analogous. Bush and Blair are the heads of state of large, powerful, and very heterogenous nations in a western society, they have to take the political considerations into account before their every word and action as they could have serious ramifications both in their own countries and on the international scene. They would not make such a fiery speech as it would amount to political suicide.

I mention this to contrast them with the Grand Mufti. He was not a de jure leader of any political entity, and the people he led were both comparitively small in number and very angry. He did not have to worry about causing an international incident with his speeches, his sole responsibility as he saw it was towards his people. As the speech in question supposedly happened after years of increasingly mutual antagonism and aggitation I see such a speech as not only plausible but probable.

One other point, "to kill" is often mis-translated to "to murder" as in the King James Bible with the "Thou Shall not Kill(Murder)" commmandment. So I could see how the Mufti's speech was mistranslated without being purposely faked. Any Thoughts?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but we do still need at least one scholarly source as to the accuracy and relevance of this quotation. It could be a true quotation that had a powerful impact at the time or it could be a fabricated quotation that had a powerful impact at the time. I haven't found any source that indicates either, but I will keep looking. --Ian Pitchford ^{(t) | (c) | (bias)} 08:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

How about we present the quote just as you said. We could add a passage explaining that it may or may not have really been said by the Mufti, but nevertheless it had serious repercussions. Do you agree?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. There are thousands of properly-sourced quotes out there that could be included before we start including rubbish like this. And no, it had no serious repercussions, for the simple reason that it didn't happen. You won't find this in a contemporary account, even as a second-hand report. If nobody heard such a thing at the time, it had no importance at the time either. Afaik, the most serious repercussions it ever had was to create a lot of argument on a certain Wikipedia talk page. --Zero 04:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again thank god for zero, He has truly showed me the error of my ways. Here I was under the impression that there were actually a couple of people that thought the quote was correctly attributed. Boy how stupid of me. Zero once again, Thank you, You have truly saved us all.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Depending on how you search for it, the quote that only generates debate on this talk page appears to be referenced on between 1000 and 80,000 web sites. Be that as it may, according to The Progressive Voice

On 1 March 1944, in a radio broadcast to the Arab people from Berlin, the Mufti stated: "Arabs! Rise as one and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor.

Unfortunately, they do not give a reference for that, but I am trying to contact them. They do give a source for the following:

In his memoirs, he wrote, "Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: 'The Jews are yours.'"

(As quoted in Jerusalem Post, 04/05/2001; Also see Collins and LaPierre, O Jerusalem; Eichmann Trial Documents, session 62, exhibit T/1266, T/1272)

Does anyone have access to his memoirs? Kriegman 06:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Another one (from a biased site, but that doesn't mean the reference is necessarily wrong or inaccurate):

Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Palestinian leader in 1948, drafted a proposal during WW2 (1941), requesting that Germany and Italy acknowledge the Arab right "to settle the question of the Jewish elements in Palestine, and other Arab countries, in accordance with national and racial interests of the Arabs, and along lines, similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy." In other words, let the Nazis and Arabs kill all the Jews. (Fritz Grobba, Peoples and Powers in the East, pp. 194-7, 207-8, Berlin, 1967; 1988). Kriegman 06:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

There is nobody here defending Amin al-Husayni. His war-time collaboration with the Nazis is well documented and you can go to Amin al-Husayni to read a summary of it. Unfortunately, due to his importance in relation to Palestine, he was also a target of Zionist propagandists who "improved" the facts by inventing a lot of things that became confused with reality. The rubbish is sexier than the reality so it is quoted more often, but that doesn't make it any truer. You can't tell the difference between facts and fables by poking around the internet, you have to seek out books by real historians who have investigated the claims. In order from most pro-Zionist to least pro-Zionist, good books are those by Zvi Elpeleg, Philip Mattar and Taysir Jbara, all of them serious historians. However, this is not a page about Husayni but one about the 1948 war. The issue is a particular thing he was supposed to have said in 1948 but afaik was not reported at the time. We can use it if it has support from the professionals, otherwise we can't. --Zero 07:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Zero. --Ian Pitchford ^{(t) | (c) | (bias)} 11:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I must say I do find it strange that you two still seem unable to understand the points being made here. There are two (2) reasons to include the quote, (though each would lead to presenting it differently). Reason one is ordinarily the only reason to include a quote. But reason two is valid if the alleged quotation has had historical impact:

• One, because he said it, or something like it in Arabic.
• Two, because it is widely believed that he did so and that such statements (by the Mufti and others) provided a context for the war in which one side thought the other was fighting a war of annihilation.

I think that both are true. But what I think is beside the point. We are having trouble with the first one, as we seem to disagree. But nobody has questioned the second one. "Poking around the Internet" was never claimed to establish the first one. It is a fine basis for establishing the second and for countering such statements as "the most serious repercussions it ever had was to create a lot of argument on a certain Wikipedia talk page." Kriegman 13:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence that he actually said it, and you have not provided any evidence that the quotation had historical impact. It is perfectly obvious that you are incapable of either and are just POV pushing. --Zero 23:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kriegman, It should be relatively easy to find out what the Mufti said and what impact he had according to scholarly accounts of this period. As for the context here is a reasonably good two paragraph summary from the volume by Sadeh cited in the article (pp. 56-57):

The 1948 war was limited in the sense that the military capabilities of both Israel and the Arab forces lacked the measns to bring about a total war of destruction exemplified by the Arabs' prinicpal strategic goal to prevent the creation of the state of Israel. The Arabs lacked the capability, arms, and economic infrastructure to support such a strategic goal. Israel faced an international arms embargo from the West and at the onset of hostilities faced severe problems in military equipment and supplies which was only addressed when deliveries were forthcoming from Czechoslavakia.

Even though military capabilities prevented a total war of destruction, policies of self-restraint were also evident. King Abdullah of Jordan held back his Arab Legion forces in favor of a limited objective supported by Israel and the British to allow for Jordanian annexation of the West Bank. In addition, the British prevented Syrian forces and arms into the area and limited the range of actions that the Arab Legion could undertake. Israel also refrained from extending its gains to Jerusalem's old city and to the Sinai peninsula largely due to external constraints such as threats of international sanctions, and arms embargoes imposed by the U.S. and Great Britain.

For a good overview of the genuine military capabilities of the Arabs and the actual forces deployed (rather than the fake figures you see mentioned on many Internet sites) see Pollack's Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991. --Ian Pitchford ^{(t) | (c) | (bias)} 19:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Also the following is very good on this question: "The Origins of the Arab-Israeli Arms Race: Arms, Embargo, Military Power and Decision in the 1948 Palestine War" by Amitzur Ilan. --Zero 23:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Ian, that is still unresponsive to the issues I raised. If anything it supports including the quotation. Your source wrote,

"The 1948 war was limited in the sense that the military capabilities of both Israel and the Arab forces lacked the means to bring about a total war of destruction exemplified by the Arabs' prinicpal strategic goal to prevent the creation of the state of Israel. The Arabs lacked the capability, arms, and economic infrastructure to support such a strategic goal."

The universal belief on the Israeli side (and shared by a significant part of the larger world) is that the Palestinians would have annihilated the Jews (the "push them into the sea" business, which may be a dubious quotation) if they could have done so, as your source essentially corroborates! A significant part of the basis for this belief is that statements like the Mufti's were made. It is almost universally believed (on the Jewish side) that the only reason the Arabs did not commit genocide is because they were beaten. That is, virtually no one on that side believes, in the slightest, that the Palestinian goal really was to create a "United State of Palestine" in which Jews would have been allowed to live. Given that the Mufti's quotation is frequently used to support that view of the reality of Palestinian motives or of the belief about Palestinian motives it has historical importance.

Its importance exists even if it is only alleged and never actually occurred. Even if we cannot agree on whether there is sufficient basis to conclude that it actually occurred, that is no reason to deny or ignore that the belief that it occurred has come to exist and has influenced the understanding of the war. At least the alleged quotation and the limited nature of our ability to verify it, along with the way in which it has come to have significance in the understanding of this war belongs in the article. And though I do not understand why, as neither you nor Zero have responded to this latter point, I am putting the quotation back. Kriegman 03:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Kriegman, the time has come to stop assuming you are arguing in good faith. Now you have written more than 4,000 words of complete rubbish about this "quotation" and it has become very very tiresome. Go away, vandal. --Zero 04:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Instead of "don't you have anything better to do," "go away," "complete rubbish," and name calling ("vandal") why don't you try to respond to the point? I have made over 400 edits. That may not be many compared to you. But other than this, not a single edit of mine has been reverted (changed, but not reverted) and I have never, until now, been accused of vandalism. How did you get to be an administrator? Kriegman 05:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Zero, once again I don't see any justification for your nastiness. I suppose next you will threaten him right?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kriegman, On the evening of the Deir Yassin attack the Irgun issued a statement saying "We intend to attack, conquer and keep until we have the whole of Palestine and Transjordan in a greater Jewish state... We hope to improve our methods in future and make it possible to spare women and children." (Bethell, 1979, p. 355). I believe the Irgun would have carried out this plan if they could, but they couldn't. We can describe the beliefs, plans and capabilities of all involved (the people, the politicians, the military, etc.) by reference to the scholarly literature. If we don't respect the sources the article will be worse than worthless. --Ian Pitchford ^{(t) | (c) | (bias)} 12:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ian, what's the point of this posting? If that is a legitimate quotation and it occurred after Deir Yassin ("on the evening of" means the night before or after?) that would certainly be a legitimate part of an article describing the Irgun's motives/intentions for their tactics, and an admission of responsibility in Deir Yassin, and maybe should appear in either an article on the 48 War or the Deir Yassin Massacre. What is your point? Kriegman 13:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I added a caveat that I am not sure is necessary. If the Mufti said something essentially like this, the caveat incorrectly implies that he may not have. However, if the quotation never occurred, including it with the caveat makes this article better than leaving it out. Readers will often see the quotation elsewhere and leaving it out makes the article seem biased or incomplete. Including it with the caveat will provide them some perspective on how to interpret this widespread belief. Kriegman 14:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

As I've said my point is that there are good sources on the beliefs, plans and capabilities of all concerned. We don't need fake material. --Ian Pitchford ^{(t) | (c) | (bias)} 19:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ian, why did you remove a quotation by an important Arab leader that is typical of what many other (but of course not all) Arab leaders? Statements like this are essential in understanding the Israeli side of the war, and should be kept. If you want to add the fact the the man is a Nazi collaborateur, do go on with it. --Heptor 14:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a sad fact that many palestinian leaders collaborated with the nazis, later with the communists than with Saddam's Baathists. There is no reason to launder such leaders out of the history --Heptor 14:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see the lengthy debate above. The quotation is probably false and does not appear in contemporary accounts. Jewish leaders also sought an accommodation with the Nazis, presumably for the realpolitik reason that they thought the Germans might win the war and be in a position to determine the course of events in the Middle East. See Revisionist Zionism. --Ian Pitchford ^{(t) | (c) | (bias)} 16:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

As I did. And I agree with Kriegman that when a quotation is that old, it is unreasonable to demand it to be referenced to primary sources. Indeed, most of what we know about history is based on secondary and even tertiary sources. The problem becomes more evident the farther back we go. There is a respected source making the claim, and, based on the mufti's past as a nazi collaborateur, it is consistent with everything else he did, as much as saying "Eureka" is consistent with the person of Archimedes.

Also, reading your contributions, I was completely shocked by your total lack of respect for your fellow contributors. Calling a contributor a "vandal"? Asking him to "go away"? This is a violation of Wikipedia:Civility, and I would really like you to keep a civilized tone here.

And, please do not call other people than your wife "dear". You did this to me too once. This is just creepy. --Heptor 20:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't Ian who made those condensending comments, in my experience Ian has been responsible and polite. The person that did actually make the comments was Zero, who is an incredibly rude, and inappropriate editor who believe it or not is an administrator.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg [[User_talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|(talk)]] 04:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. An administrator who violates Wikipedia's policy, not to mention the code of civilized conduct? Nice... Still, I hope not to be called dear either. --Heptor 22:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Also in response to Ians comment about the Jewish Leaders who sought accomandation with the Nazis, this is technically true, however, the only Jewish leader who did this was Abraham Stern of the Lehi, who was far from mainstream even among the Irgun who are usually seen as radical.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You're very generous, as normally is Heptor. Wikipedia is not improved by the addition of material not supported by reputable sources. Inclusion of the quotation places the article amongst the disreputable sources. --Ian Pitchford ^{(t) | (c) | (bias)} 21:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I couldn't agree with you more on this one. But, the source provided is reputable. It was there for 40 years, and it is widely accepted. It would be preferable to have an original source, but even if we are making a mistake, it is not a large one: saying something like this is quite consistent with the rest of his, ehm, personality. This is generally consistent with how other historical persons are quoted, like Euklid's "eureka", or Stalins "death of one man is a tragedy, death of a million is a statistic" . In general, when writing about something that happened long ago, or written documentation is generally poor, one have to rely on secondary and even tertiary sources.

I may just as well ask you a question: could you provide any verifiable sources as to what this mufti was saying to his own people at the time? I don't mean what he was saying to the UN; this is much better documented, but, he would be likely to moderate such opinions there. --Heptor 22:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The onus on those who want to include this "quotation". Can you provide any evidence that the claim dates from the time of the 1948 war? Never mind whether he said or not, just show us that someone at the time believed or claimed he said it. Btw, the answer to your question can be found in the better books on the Mufti that I listed somewhere above. Why don't you go find us a real quotation? --Zero 23:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

you mean somewhere above, in the 32K discussion article?--Heptor 23:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ian, your fancy signature is making the entire text go bold! You have to close HTML tags in the reverse order from one you open them: you should write: "<br><font>somecrap</font></br>", not "<br><font>somecrap</br></font>" --Heptor 22:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ian, this quotation is well-referenced, although by secondary sources, and is very important to understanding the conflict. There must be a reference to the mufti's position, otherwise the article gives only very partial information about the confllict--Heptor 13:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please answer Zero's question above: "Can you provide any evidence that the claim dates from the time of the 1948 war? Never mind whether he said or not, just show us that someone at the time believed or claimed he said it." --Ian Pitchford 15:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is general lack of documentation of what exactly he was saying. I hope Zero will take the time and provide the book references once again. I hope he is not expecting me to read the 106669 bytes in this discussion to find them? If you have a better way of describing the Mohammad Amin al-Husayni's position, please do. It is important, as he is was an imporant Arab leader. His position should be expanded, not laundered from the history, even if it was dirty. --Heptor 15:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your point about documentation, but there are good sources on the Mufti and most of them are mentioned in the Wikipedia article on him at Amin al-Husayni and there is usually much usable material available via Google Print. However, I would have thought that the Mufti was notable for his lack of influence on the outcome of 1948 War. --Ian Pitchford 16:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Then mention it! He was an imporant figure, religiously and politically (I don't think I have to mention that religion and politics are often one in this part of the World). If you beleive that his influence was reduced by the time of 1948 war, mention it also. There is no reason to remove relevant information. --Heptor 16:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems the actual problem is not whether or not he actually said it, but when he said it. As it stands now, inserting his quotation in this article may turn out to be like inserting the recent comments by the Iranian president regarding "wiping Israel off the map" in an article about the Iran-Iraq war of 1980 (sorry, best analogy I could think of). It is important to show that such a statement was in fact made at a time pertinent to the 1948 war. Otherwise, in Heptor's line of reasoning, it would belong in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just my opinion. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I see the problem here, of course. It would be preferable to have a primary source here. But having secondary sources is better than not including relevant information. Mohammad Amin al-Husayn was, in fact, was a nazi collaborateur since weeks after Hitlers rise to power. For many jews, that ment that he indirectly supported the Holocaust. This is imporant for understand of the

situation, don't you agree? --Heptor 16:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Heptor, you wrote, "But, the source provided is reputable. It was there for 40 years, and it is widely accepted." I do not know how reputable the source is and was willing to question it based on Zero's characterization of it. So, in contrast to Zero, why do you say it is reputable? And what did you mean by "It was there for 40 years?" The war was 57 years ago and the reference was written 23 years ago.

In any case, neither Zero nor Ian have responded to the other issue: The quotation is widely believed and keeping it out of a view of human knowledge/belief about the 48 war is censorship. In the modified form I presented it last, doubt about the accuracy of the quotation was added. Ian, Zero or others can edit the presentation to make sure it accurately reflects the proper amount of doubt, but preventing readers from knowing how a large part of the world understands the war is censorship. I am putting back the modified presentation of the quotation. (Heptor beat me to it.)

Heptor also makes another point that should be included in this article (but is unnecessary to add if this quotation is in the article as it is somewhat redundant). Since the Mufti was a known Nazi collaborator who enthusiastically supported the Nazis and got the OK from the Nazis to deal with the Jews of Palestine as he saw fit, and since he was definitely a major (if not the major) Palestinian leader in the 1948 War, the assumption (immediately after the Holocaust) that a Nazi collaborator leading his fellow Arabs to arms had genocide in mind was clearly a part of the belief system shared by those on the Jewish side of the conflict. Kriegman 16:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The Mufti wasn't an important leader in the 1948 war. Politically, the Arab League was against him and Britain, Israel/The Jewish Agency and Transjordan had already agreed that there would be no Palestinian state. The Arab Liberation Army was led by Fawzi al-Qawuqji, who blamed the Mufti for his incarceration by the Germans, was not particularly committed to fighting the Jews and agreed not to intervene in the Haganah's attacks on the Mufti's forces. Militarily, the mufti's forces collapse completely on the death of Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni on 9 April. The Arab League forces had no agreed goals, Lebanon did practically nothing and only contributed a token force, the Iraqis gave up in early June, as did the Syrians who were mainly interested in keeping their own territory safe from Abdullah's Greater Syria plan. The Egyptians were also worried about Abdullah and were in pursuit of a token victory. Is that the situation you want to summarise as "a Nazi collaborator leading his fellow Arabs to arms had genocide in mind" using a fake quotation? --Ian Pitchford 17:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The mufti may not have had a large impact on the actual arab forces that invaded Israel, but he was probably the most influential Palestinian leader at the time, because of this even though most of the other Arab leaders despised him they did not do so openly. So in the mind of the Jews the phrase was signifigant whether it was real or not. P.S. Could you stop referrring to it as a fake quotation, this is far from unanimously accepted Thanks.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg [[User_talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|(talk)]] 22:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ian, OK, you may be right about the Mufti's importance. In regard to the collapse of his forces on April 9 upon the death of Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni (a relative?), I didn't know this. You see, I got a lot of my understanding of this war from this article :-)

However, there are some things that need clarification then. If the real leader of the Arab Liberation Army did not want to fight the Jews, Lebanon did nothing, the Iraqis and the Syrians gave up, and the Egyptians were just pursuing a token victory, then who was fighting the Jews? In this war, the casualty rate was between 1 and 2 Arabs for every Israeli. In the other major wars it was 25 to 1 (6-Day-War), and between 3 and 5 to 1 (1973 War). So this was the most intensely fought war (closest to even numbers of casualties with the largest percentage of population lost) with no real Arab leaders wanting to fight. Something is wrong with this picture.

But even if you are right about the Mufti's importance (and then you have to explain who whipped up the Palestinians into the most intensely fought war with nobody on the Arab side wanting to fight), I would just edit what I wrote earlier to tone that aspect down and re-ask the same question. Instead of saying he was a major "leader," I would point out that he was a major Arab figure. He was well known and quite outspoken. And he was undoubtedly a significant Arab leader if it is known that Fawzi al-Qawuqji cooperated with the Jews in order to neutralize his power. So the point I raised remains. And we have some new questions to answer. Who fought the Israelis? Kriegman 23:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please identify one of these Jews in whose mind it had significance. --Zero 23:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

What do you have in mind? Like, some of these Jews witnessing that they've heard him saying it, and that it made them feel scared? --Heptor 03:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Zero, this problem has been acknowledged, repeatedly: No one has presented any direct references to specific people who heard or were affected by the quotation. Though that need not be the basis for including a quotation, it would help, and the lack of such ear-witnesses and only having one known source suggests the possibility that your concerns are valid. Because of this, I edited the presentation to include some doubt about the accuracy of the source (though Heptor said it is reputable, he has not explained why he said that). If you want to see more doubt included, edit it, don't delete it. I am trying to respond to your substantive point. Now how about responding to the points I and others repeatedly note?

Kriegman 00:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Kriegman, I do consider the sources provided reputable enough for the quotation to be included in the article. Even if it comes from secondary sources, it is consistent with everything else we know about him from other sources. A primary source would be preferred, of course. If his position is explained in some other way, I don't think it would hurt the ballance of the article. --Heptor 03:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

For what its worth, I am now pretty firmly against using the quote in this article now. As I understand it: (a) the veracity of the quote is in doubt, (b) real or not, we don't know if the quote actually is related to the 1948 War, (c) real or not, we don't know if the quote was heard by anyone actually fighting in the War, whether they were Jews or Arabs, (d) even if it was heard, it is not clear that it was significant to anybody. If it was only one of these issues, I would feel free using the quote in a more qualified way, but all four together make the quote pretty weak. I cannot really see a compelling reason why it needs to be in the article, which can still explain the role of the Mufti without the quote. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

GOP's arguments sound very convincing to me. Humus sapiens 02:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I modified the quotation to "was allegedly quoted", and added that he cooperated with the Nazi Germany. --Heptor 03:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that solves the problem -- if the quote is so dubious, and we have no evidence of its meaning, context, or even its date -- we should not include it at all. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I would say even if it did not occur it would definitley have had an impact on Jews that had just emirgrated from Post-War Europe. However, if it turns out that even the allegation of the quote did not occur until after the war of independence that I would also support the Naysayers(for lack of a proper category) however if we can find some kind of prrof that this allegation existed before the war ended then I think we should include it in the article, albeit with a phrase stating it probably never occured the way it is stated(unless of course we can find some actual solid evidence here, although we probably won't).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg [[User_talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|(talk)]] 04:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The key element, HCHAS, is what you mentioned, "some kind of proof" -- proof this was said, or the timing, or that it mattered to anyone. The only evidence I have found to date about this quote is on the Palestine Facts website (pro-Israel), which says: In 1929, major Arab riots were instigated against the Jews of Palestine. They began when al-Husseini falsely accused Jews of defiling and endangering local mosques, including al-Aqsa. The call went out to the Arab masses: "Izbah Al-Yahud!" — "Slaughter the Jews!" After the killing of Jews in Hebron, the Mufti disseminated photographs of slaughtered Jews with the claim that the dead were Arabs killed by Jews. If this is the source, then we are talking 1929, not 1948. Again, why is there such a fight to include this quote, especially as it has been so watered-down, given the doubt by so many editors representing so many POVs? Again, it either needs to be shown that it was (a) really a quote from the 1948 war by the Mufti or (b) an influential fake, that, in your words "definitely...had an impact on Jews" at the time. Neither of these has been demonstrated. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ironically, I may have added this particular quote earlier. Later I saw that some claim it's a 1920s rallying cry, others date it in 1940s. There is no reason to use it in this article. For the War of Independence 1948, there are plenty of proven reliable facts & quotes. I am going to comment it until proof is presented. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You also commented the sentence "The situation was not made easier by the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni, closely cooperated with the Nazi Germany during the Second World War". I believe this is sourced fairly well. Was it intentional? --Heptor 12:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Humus, GOP, the 1929 riots were just the beginning of his nefarious activities. There are plenty of references to his fomenting violence after 1929 and before, during, and after the 48 war. The references in 1929 are not "about this quote," they are about similar activity before this quotation is alleged to have occurred. There is no question that he organized military action during the war and, according to Ian, his followers were defeated in April of 48 with the cooperation of the major Arab military leader. No one disputed his calling his fellow Arabs to war against the Jews in 1948; the only question was the language and whether it implied a call to genocide. The earlier 1929 quotation suggests that he did use such language. But this is not surprising, especially if you read about his history and his rather nasty actions toward fellow Arabs as well. Nobody disputes that he was an unpleasant fellow, a Nazi collaborator and all that.

As for sources for the quote: Why would we give any credence to a pro-Israeli web site and not to the book that Heptor says is a good source and Zero says is propaganda? While Zero may be right, his style in this debate has been to call names. If that is his character and he rapidly labels anything/one he disagrees with, then that undermines his claim that the source is propaganda.

And I still cannot fathom why you wouldn't respond to the other issue. Have you read the debate above? The FACT is (as anyone who bothers to look can attest to) that this quotation is widely believed and is in innumerable web sites. In fact, it is on the same web site you referenced as saying the Mufti said something similar in 1929: and it couldn't be any clearer that it was said in 1947-48, not 1929! But even if all these web sites have got it wrong, we simply cannot ignore the fact that this is almost universally believed by the Jewish community. It is part of the human understanding/belief about this conflict. It cannot be ignored or left out of an article.

It was widely known at the time that the Mufti and his followers were agitating the Arabs to violence (again, this was not disputed). It was widely known at the time that he was a Nazi collaborator (undisputed). It was widely known at the time that the Nazis had murdered millions of Jews in one of the most grotesque attempts at systematic genocide. And now this Nazi leader/figure was agitating people to go to war against the Jews. The sentiment in the quotation existed in 1948 and had considerable influence on the Jews in 1948. One would have to be willing to bend over backward and stick his head up . . . to deny that. The only question is the specific wording in the quotation.

• 1-It has a reasonable source, even if it has been questioned.
• 2-It is very widely cited.
• 3-It is universally believed by one side of the conflict and many others
• 4-It has made a significant contribution to the way the conflict is understood.
• 5-It is unquestionably placed in 1947-48 (not 1929)
• 6-It is not disputed (unlike so many other claims by one side) by those who knew the Mufti and how he spoke
• 7-Other Arab leaders apparently tried to distance themselves from the Mufti because of such extremism

While the limits of the verification and doubts can be included, it cannot be ignored or censored out of the article. Kriegman 06:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Kriegman simply can't be serious. He's trolling, simple as that. --Zero 09:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought too, when he told you are an adminitrator. --Heptor 12:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Kriegman - Most of the points you are making here are really about the historiography of the 1948 war rather than the history of that war. If you want to discuss these issues they could be part of a short section on historiography, perhaps in the context of Simha Flapan's "seven myths" of the creation of Israel in The Birth of Israel, New York, 1987. Most quotations of this type support one of the seven myths. Or perhaps there could be a separate article on Historiography of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which could also look at the Arab myths about the conflict. On an important matter of fact at Arab League meetings the mufti argued against the intervention of regular Arab armies in Palestine. Azzam Pasha told the British (who told Jewish officials) that Arab League policy was to "squeeze the mufti out" and that they viewed him as the Menachem Begin of the Arabs! --Ian Pitchford 11:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ian, I must thank you for being so well-informed. You have clearly studied this more than I have. But it is striking how each of your interpretations are so one-sided that I again see in the evidence you present a stronger case against your ultimate point.

The Arab League had many tensions in it. Jordan had aspirations that the Egyptians and Syrians opposed. They all wanted pieces of Palestine. And Jordan wanted no strong Menachem Begin to arise and oppose Abdullah's aspirations. So, of course, the Mufti, the Palestinian Begin, wanted no invasion of his turf by those who had designs on his envisioned Palestinian state, with him as its leader. He was definitely a power hungry manipulator who killed Jews and Arab moderates alike. He wanted his armed gangs to grow into an army. He thought the Arab states should support the Palestinian effort (with him as head). And the last thing he wanted was to be marginalized in the struggle by the presence of strong organized armies whose leaders opposed his aspirations.

But the organized opposition to the Mufti completely demolishes your claim that he was an insignificant leader. He had vociferous aspirations for his people and they were pursued with violence toward all opposed. It is clear that he was a major, known, active figure at the time and wielded considerable influence over the political debate. Even if he was outmaneuvered militarily, he had clear socio-cultural influence in many spheres, i.e., he had a significant impact on the consciousness of all of the parties involved in the conflict.

While it is true that we could write a separate article on the historiography of this war and the Arab Israeli conflict in general (and that may be a good idea and, to an extent, might move this and similar debates to another forum), this quotation has had a significant impact on the Jewish understanding of This War, at the time, if it happened, and surely since then, if it is only a false allegation. All my life I have heard (and believed) that the Jews were fighting against annihilation/genocide. I still believe that today, i.e., that the Jews believed that, if they lost the war, they would be annihilated in mass murder. And I think that it was true. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, I believe the world largely thought so too.

And given how outnumbered the Jews were, I thought everyone thought it was a likely possibility. It is only in working on this article that I have come to reexamine the notion that the Jews were the military underdogs they appeared to me (and much of the world) to have been. Apparently they were better organized and militarily out-numbered a much larger Palestinian/Arab foe that was splintered, disorganized, and divided by half-hearted invasions by nations with opposing, uncoordinated agendas.

I think there is a very important point that maybe should be worked into this article, though I am not sure it is not original research as no one has noted a source for this (though Ian probably knows of one, if one exists): The military leaders of the Jewish forces clearly were worried at times and the outcome was not at all clear from the beginning. But did they believe they had the upper hand and were unlikely to lose? IF they knew or believed that they were in a militarily stronger position, what about the Jewish masses? Were they confident of ultimate victory? Or (again IF their leaders believed otherwise) were they manipulated by their leaders into thinking they were in grave danger of undergoing an extension of the Holocaust? This is an important part of the story and there may be enough documentation to include it in an article. Though I admit, if we are having a major struggle over this quotation, this issue would pose a bit of a problem ;-)

But the perception of a genocidal war is what is at issue here. It was clearly believed by the Jews that this was a war of annihilation. The issue for this article is whether there were overt statements to that effect by major Arab figures. I believe there were. I believe that the mere fact that the Mufti was still seen as the "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem" and was organizing military action and had followers chanting in the streets (after his known collaboration with the Nazis and in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust) in itself is such a "statement." We are debating about whether there is evidence that he put this "de facto statement" into an actual, specific public statement.

I still do not know what the quality of the evidence is. Myths and Facts may be a propaganda fabrication. I would like to know what the basis is for the claim that it is a propaganda piece by Zero. Did it make other statements that are know to be false? If not, why should we doubt this one? And why does Heptor claim it is authoritative? Were the authors known historians? In any case, Zero has added to his repertoire of insults, "Troll." So I am now willing to discount any label or judgment he makes unless he backs it up with a specific argument/reason. It seems striking that he doesn't do so: He just labels and name calls.

I am researching the quotation further (as I hope others are). In the meantime, and as there is no historiography article, as the only Wikipedia article on human knowledge/belief about this particular war, this article needs to include this quotation (alleged or factual) that has had a significant and very widespread effect on the human understanding/belief about this conflict. And again, there can be discussion of its accuracy and whether it occurred at the time and affected the political atmosphere in which the war occurred or was invented afterward and has colored human understanding of the war since then. The article has now been modified to clearly note the existence of doubt. But this quotation is a significant part of an accurate story/picture/depiction of human understanding/belief about this war. Kriegman 14:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to have to say this is a lost cause Kriegman, I'm sorry. You definitly argues well but I think it is time to let this one go. With that said Zero has proved again and again that he should not be an administrator. His complete lack of respect for anyone that disagrees with him is obvious, his complete lack of skills and workable knowledge is one thing, but what is much worse is the fact that his only tool in these conflicts is bullying. I think it is time to lodge an offical complaint.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Moshe, first, if you look at Zero's creations, it is clear that he has considerable knowledge (I am almost certain that he has more than me). Thus, it is more puzzling as to why he doesn't use it and, indeed, leads us to feel that "his only tool in these conflicts is bullying."

Second, I don't understand why you GOP thinks the consensus is so clear. You, me, and Heptor feel the article should include the quotation. Ramallite, GOP, and Humus do not; but their opinions are largely based on the assumption that we are not clear when the statement was made, which as I understand it, has not been an issue here at all: The only source that dates it, dates it clearly and the other similar statements the Mufti may have made earlier are not at all confused in the source. The only source for the confusion as to when the alleged statement was made is in this discussion. Those three apparently have not followed the argument on this page. Ian and Zero clearly do not think the article should contain the quote. By my count, that is three to two for inclusion among the votes focused on the issue of validity. If you include the time issue voters, it is five to three against. Either way, that's hardly consensus.

Third, only Ian among those opposed to the inclusion has responded in any way to the other issue of the quotation's importance in affecting human understanding (at the time, if it was made, and since then, if it was fabricated). On that issue, you and I (and maybe Heptor) seem to agree. On that issue, the vote is 2 or 3 to 1. So I do not see the consensus you GOP refers to. Kriegman 21:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Moshe, please consider Kriegman's view very carefully before letting go with changes you disagree with. Too many times articles related to Arab-Israeli conflict were change by Zero and Ian, simply because other editors gave up arguing for their opinions. My advise here on Wiki, is the same as anywhere else in life: stand by what you believe!--Heptor 01:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is very important that the most persistent and stubborn not be allowed to avoid engaging the issues and win by attrition. Before I replace the quotation, I would ask Ramallite, GOP, and Humus to respond to the point I noted above, i.e., that there is no confusion whatsoever about when this quote was made or alleged to have been made. That issue was never here until GOP suggested that another, different statement by the Mufti made in 1929 was the quotation in question. This is not and never was the case. Indeed, as I noted above, the site that GOP referenced as the source of the 1929 statement made a completely separate reference to the specific quotation in question and clearly dated it during the 48 War.

So if the timing issue is removed, and we are focusing solely on the issue that this quotation

• if actually made during the 48 War, as Myths and Facts states, provided some of the context in which the Jews (and much of the rest of the world) thought that the Arabs were fighting a war of annihilation

• if it is a propaganda fabrication made up after the war, has had wide distribution, is very widely known/believed and has had a significant impact on understanding and belief about this war by one side of the conflict (and a signfiicant part of the rest of the world).

In either case, it seems that a complete article on the 48 War must include an aknowledgement of this quotation's existence (as a fact or a fabrication) and its impact on the war and/or beliefs about the war.

I am asking Humus, GOP, and Ramallite to respond to this issue and to let us know, after removing the 29 vs 48 time frame issue, what their position is on this. Kriegman 05:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

First off, you were right, the quote as listed on the "Palestine Facts" page is alleged to be from 1948, so I am not so concerned about the date issue. However, the date issue was not the only reason for the objection, the main reason is that the evidence for this quote is extremely, extremely shakey; and there is absolutely no evidence for its significance. Your views that the quote "has had a significant impact on understanding and belief about this war by one side of the conflict (and a signfiicant part of the rest of the world)." just isn't supported by the evidence. I have not read the quote in any major account of the war I have encountered, I could not find it in ProQuest, Nexis, or JSTOR searches, nor in the archives of the Jerusalem Post. If you could show that it is actually significant to the views of the war, I would have much less objection to including it. Propoganda sites are not good places to look to show the significance of a quote, the number of false quotes out there that are repeated is significant, and by your argument, widespread ones (like Ouze Merham, which was described by CAMERA as "found on hundreds of Arab Web sites, and indeed, seems to be a a staple of anti-Israel propaganda.") should be cited in articles because they are significant. I think that is very bad policy, and will not support adding the quote unless it is (a) proven true or (b) proven false but significant in 1948. Until this is clearly demonstrated with outside sources, this quote shouldn't be here. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand why Zero removed this passage from the article- "The situation was not made easier by the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni, closely cooperated with the Nazi Germany during the Second World War." Zero himself had agreed that the Mufti's wartime collaboration with the Nazis was well known. Can someone explain the difference to me?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It is true that he cooperated with Nazi Germany, but this article is about the 1948 war so the relevance has to be established. That is an opinion which is not generally accepted by historians. The majority opinion is that his actual influence in the Palestine issue in 1948 was negligible, which is what the Arab states intended. In fact his relevance had been pretty minor since he fled Palestine to avoid British arrest in 1937. So I see this insertion as rather gratuitous. It would be quite easy to add lots of anti-Zionist "don't forget"s as well; we should avoid that sort of posturing. It isn't a competition. --Zero 09:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

His significance after the war is quite well explained in the Amin al-Husayni article. For example, in 1948 he was made president of the All-Palestine goverment. It was recognized by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen (notice that Jordan is not on the list). You write him off too early. If there is a Jewish leader of any significance who openly and consistently supported genocide against Arabs, do add it to the article. I agree that this is not a competition, but if it were, Amin al-Husayni would have the gold. --Heptor 09:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, his significance after the war isn't explained in the article at all because he had none. Here's a summary by a first-class Oxford historian, Avi Shlaim on the connection between the establishment of the All-Palestine Government and Israel's renewal of contact with King ‘Abdullah's emissaries in September 1948:

Rumors that ‘Abdullah was once again in contact with the Jewish leaders further damaged his standing in the Arab world. His many critics suggested that he was prepared to compromise the Arab claim to the whole of Palestine as long as he could acquire part of Palestine for himself. "The internecine struggles of the Arabs," reported Glubb, "are more in the minds of the Arab politicians than the struggle against the Jews. ‘Azzam Pasha, the mufti and the Syrian government would sooner see the Jews get the whole of Palestine than that King ‘Abdullah should benefit."

To thwart ‘Abdullah's ambition, the other members of the Arab League, led by Egypt, decided in Alexandria on 6 September to approve the establishment of an Arab government for the whole of Palestine with a seat in Gaza. This was too little and too late. The desire to placate public opinion, critical of the Arab governments for failing to protect the Palestinians, was a major consideration. The decision to form the Government of All-Palestine in Gaza, and the feeble attempt to create armed forces under its control, furnished the members of the Arab League with the means of divesting themselves of direct responsibility for the prosecution of the war and of withdrawing their armies from Palestine with some protection against popular outcry. Whatever the long-term future of the Arab government of Palestine, its immediate purpose, as conceived by its Egyptian sponsors, was to provide a focal point of opposition to ‘Abdullah and serve as an instrument for frustrating his ambition to federate the Arab regions with Transjordan.

But the contrast between the pretensions of the All-Palestine Government and its capability quickly reduced it to the level of farce. It claimed jurisdiction over the whole of Palestine, yet it had no administration, no civil service, no money, and no real army of its own. Even in the small enclave around the town of Gaza its writ ran only by the grace of the Egyptian authorities. Taking advantage of the new government's dependence on them for funds and protection, the Egyptian paymasters manipulated it to undermine ‘Abdullah's claim to represent the Palestinians in the Arab League and in international forums. Ostensibly the embryo for an independent Palestinian state, the new government, from the moment of its inception, was thus reduced to the unhappy role of a shuttlecock in the ongoing power struggle between Cairo and Amman.

The formation of the Government of All-Palestine revived the mufti's Holy War Army--Jaysh al-Jihad al-Muqaddas. This irregular army endangered Transjordan's control in Arab Palestine. The Transjordan government therefore decided to nip in the bud the challenge posed by this army to its authority. On 3 October, the Minister of Defense laid down that all armed bodies operating in the areas controlled by the Arab Legion were either to be under its orders or disbanded. Glubb carried out this order promptly and ruthlessly. Suspecting that Arab officers would balk at performing such an unpatriotic task, he sent British officers to surround and forcibly disband the Holy War Army. The operation brought the Arabs to the brink of internecine war when they were supposed to be cooperating against the common enemy. But it effectively neutralized the military power of ‘Abdullah's Palestinian rivals. Against this background, the Israeli attack on the Egyptian army was not altogether unwelcome. Glubb privately expressed the hope that the Jewish offensive "may finally knock out the Gaza government and give the gyppies [sic] a lesson!" In a letter to Colonel Desmond Goldie, the British commander of the First Brigade, Glubb explained that "if the Jews are going to have a private war with the Egyptians and the Gaza government, we do not want to get involved. The gyppies and the Gaza government are almost as hostile to us as the Jews!"

Reference available on request. --Ian Pitchford 20:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ian, once again your references do not support your point. If the Mufti's "irregular army endangered Transjordan's control in Arab Palestine" and needed to be put down, bringing the Arabs "to the brink of internecine war," then the Mufti was a significant player. Clearly, he was one of the few (2, 3?) identified leaders vying for the allegiance of the Palestinian people. Even if his influence was diminished by the events you cited, in the minds of the participants in the war (on both sides), he was a major figure who---if nothing else---knew how to appear more important than he was (as evidenced by his maneuverings to be appointed Grand Mufti, the 29 and 36 violence, his well-known role as a Nazi collaborator associating with Hitler, Himmler, and Eichmannn, his well-known radio broadcasts, etc.).

Indeed, it is simply unmistakably clear that the Jews thought they were involved in a war of annihilation and that the Mufti's actions and words made a significant contribution to that belief. Because of this, I have added references to more documented words of the Mufti. See below. Kriegman 21:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The Mufti's role in creating the belief that the Arab goal was eliminating the Jews

First, another example of the influence of the disputed quotation

CAMERA American Bar Association Journal Libels Israel December 8, 2000 by Alex Safian:

The primary Palestinian leader spoke similarly. Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, declared through his spokesman that the Arabs’ goal was “the elimination of the Jewish state.” (Collins, p 400). Husseini also instructed his followers, “I declare a holy war, my Muslim brothers! Murder the Jews, murder them all.”

Second, is Yad Vashem scholarly enough?

On a panel in the Yad Vashem (Museum of the Shoa), which can be viewed here, it is written:

He [the Mufti] conducted a vicious propaganda campaign against the Allies and especially against the Jews on Arabic broadcast over German radio, calling upon Arabic and Muslims to slaughter the Jews wherever they might be.

Third, a response to "He didn't speak like that"

Evidence that the Mufti "spoke like that" (the actual quote is here, and here is some documentation of the claim that the Mufti promoted the murder of the Jews, not just their removal from Palestine) from The Mufti of Jerusalem by Maurice Pearlman. The Israelis knew about these broadcasts (well documented and Pearlman's book was published in 1947).

Fourth, implications of the quotations from the German broadcasts

Knowledge of these broadcasts was widespread in Israel (according to innumerable sources), but this is the first time I was actually able to find documentation of his specific words and when he said them. We could substitute the Myths and Facts quote for this one. This is just as highly relevant to the article as a leader of a significant, known segment of the Palestinian forces who was involved in much of the highest planning among the Palestinians and their allied nations during the 1948 War and had the highest religious title (even if manufactured) was known to have been a Nazi collaborator who actively worked for and specifically called for the extermination of the Jews.

And another source documenting the radio broadcast calls for extermination, from The Mufti and the Fuehrer by Joseph Schachtman. All of this was well known by the Jews of the 1948 War as such acts led to the Mufti being considered a war criminal. Indeed, he was believed (in 1948) to have been actively involved with top level Nazis, including Eichmann, according to affidavits prepared for the Nuremberg Trials in 1946.

Fifth, the well-known allegations of the extent of his collaboration with the Nazis in addition to the quotation (somewhere above) from the Mufti's own memoirs (which I wasn't able to verify) in which he extracted a promise from the Germans to allow the Palestinians to exterminate the Jews:

Evidence introduced at the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem indicates however that the Mufti and Eichmann were close and that the Mufti was an important role in instigating the Holocaust, according to second hand testimony of Steiner regarding Dieter Wisliceny, Eichmann's deputy for Slovakia and Hungary:

"State Attorney Bach: This is our document No. 281. Mr. Steiner first tells us that Wisliceny described his talks with Eichmann, why Palestine cannot be considered as the destination for emigration: "When I asked him why, he laughed and asked whether I had never heard of the Grand Mufti Husseini. He explained that the Mufti has very close contact and cooperation with Eichmann, and therefore Germany cannot agree to Palestine being the final destination, as this would be a blow to Germany's prestige in the Mufti's eyes."

Then he goes on: "At this further conversation Wisliceny gave me more details about the cooperation between Eichmann and the Mufti. The Mufti is a sworn enemy of the Jews and has always fought for the idea of annihilating the Jews. He sticks to this idea always, also in his talks with Eichmann" - and here we have one of the points about which Wisliceny has reservations - "who, as you know, is a German who was born in Palestine. The Mufti is one of the originators of the systematic destruction of European Jewry by the Germans, and he has become a permanent colleague, partner and adviser to Eichmann and Himmler in the implementation of this programme."

Here Wisliceny adds: "I have read these descriptions and find them correct, except for this, that Eichmann was born in Palestine, and that the Mufti was a permanent partner of Himmler's; this is not what I said."

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1117."

Web source: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-050-07.html

At the Nuremberg Trials in July 1946, Wisliceny testified had written an affidavit (The reason for this correction is presented below in a posting around this time: Kriegman 17:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC).) A statement by Wisliceny was introduced in the Eichmann trial in which Wisliceny had said:

"The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chamber of Auschwitz."

Of course, Eichmann and the Mufti denied this. But in a broadcast from Germany, the Mufti made a reference to the 11 million Jews in the world. It was thought this was a slip of the tongue as everyone knew there were 17 million Jews. However, as a confidante/collaborator of Himmler and Eichmann, the Mufti had detailed knowledge of the extent of the Holocaust.

Because of this new (to me, that is) information I uncovered, in addition to all of the above I am editing the article to depict the verifiable basis for the well-documented Jewish concern that the war was being fought for their annihilation while relegating the disputed quotation to a footnote and fully elucidating the reason for doubting it. Kriegman 21:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Research well done, Kriegman! This provides the reference Ian and Zero were asking for, and much much more. --Heptor 22:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

None of that makes the slightest difference and some of it is plain wrong. As I said before, the Mufti's Nazi collaboation is well described in the article on him. The relevance to this article has not been established. As for your "evidence": Wisliceny did not testify about the Mufti at the Nuremberg trials. I've read the full transcript of his testimony (which is now on the web somewhere, perhaps at Nizkor). The claims you repeat from the Eichmann trial (where they were gratuitously added to teach the world that Arabs are Nazis) come from a magazine article by a journalist who claims to have been told these things by Wisliceny while he was in prison at Nuremberg. In Mattar's book-length biography of the mufti we read "Eichmann's own testimony confirmed...that Wisleceny had mistaken Musa 'Abdullah al-Husayni for the Mufti". (I don't know how Mattar reached that conclusion.) As for Maurice Pearlman, his book (and an earlier book of Waters, who was actually Pearlman writing under a pseudonym) is one of the main original sources of false or unverifiable claims about the Mufti. This highly polemic propaganda tract came out with a crude image of the Mufti on the cover showing his fingernails dripping with blood; just what you expect for a serious history book (not). Schechtman was a close associate of Ze'ev Jabotinsky-another objective source I'm sure. Ian's recent changes are good. --Zero 23:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Weirder and Weirder

Hmmn. Pearlman's a no good gorifying liar. Schachtman's lousy because he knew Jabotinsky. Davis and Decter are Israeli lackeys. Even Sachar cannot be trusted and a note had to be added to the effect of "the quotation has not been verified." I think I'm beginning to get it: Anyone who suggests the Israelis might have been up against a difficult situation is obviously biased. The Israelis had the the upper hand from the start and the Arabs were just victimized by them.

Let's see. Who is a reliable source? Why Philip Mattar, of course. How many times have you referenced him? I lost count. He must be unbiased, right? Let's take a look:

Philip Mattar is the author of The Encyclopedia of the Palestinians. Sounds authoritative, doesn't it. But let's not mention that he is also Executive Director of the Washington, DC-based Institute for Palestine Studies, a quasi “academic” organization which was founded in Beirut and has long had close, if unacknowledged, ties to the PLO. Indeed, one State Department official described the IPS as “the unofficial academic wing of the PLO.” (New Republic, May 19, 1982)

Mattar is also the author of The Mufti of Jerusalem: Al-Hajj Amin Al-Hussaini, Founder of the Palestinian National Movement. You know, the Mufti, who according to Ian and Zero was an insignificant nobody who had no influence over the 1948 War and was an irrelevant figure in Palestinian nationalism. And oh yeah: Don't forget that we have to reject Schachtman because he is associated with Jabotinsky. Yet, Mattar glorifies this Nazi collaborator nobody of no importance (according to Ian and Zero) as "The Founder of the Palestinian National Movement," but that shouldn't make us question Mattar's objectivity.

The Mufti, we have agreed, was notorious for his close alliance with the Nazis in World War Two. This included his well-documented formation of a special Muslim Waffen SS Division in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Known as the Handschar Division, it committed brutal war crimes against Serb Christians, leading the postwar Yugoslavian government to indict the Mufti as a war criminal. No surprises, right? We all agreed that the Mufti was a Nazi collaborator. So stop mentioning that irrelevancy, Kriegman. Yet in his authoritative, book length biography of the "Founder of the Palestinian National Movement," Mattar manages to mention none of these facts.

Yet, that is what Zero and Ian turn to for validation. Now there's an unbiased source we can rely on. To quote Zero, "Not."

This is getting bizarre. Kriegman 02:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I have gotten a bit lost here, since it seems like the argument has moved past a single quote and into a discussion on the Mufti in general and his role in anti-Jewish sentiment in the Mandate both before and after the war. Kriegman, could you please summarize what, exactly, you want in this article about the Mufti, and how would you phrase it? --Goodoldpolonius2 03:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe Ian and Zero wanted to remove the quote because:

1. They did not find it documented that Mufti said that or even spoke like that. Quoting Zero: "Can you provide any evidence that the claim dates from the time of the 1948 war? Never mind whether he said or not, just show us that someone at the time believed or claimed he said it.""
2. They claimed that the Mufti had no significance during or after the war. Quoting Ian: "[...] his significance after the war isn't explained in the article at all because he had none.""

I believe Kriegman has provided references for both cases, just read his contribution here: Talk:1948_Arab-Israeli_War#The_Mufti.27s_role_in_creating_the_belief_that_the_Arab_goal_was_eliminating_the_Jews. Besides making the point, this is one example of excellent academic research which represents the best in Wikipedia. With best regards,

--Heptor 12:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

GOP, the Jews were particularly suspicious (paranoid even, but for good reason, seeing as this was right after the Holocaust and Israel was filling up with Holocaust survivors) about the existence of genocidal antisemitic motives on the part of the Arabs. In addition to the mini-masacres that had occurred in Palestine, this was further inflamed when Arab leaders made genocidal statements during the 48 War. Such statements, (kill em all; show no mercy; crush em; push them into the sea; massacre the bastards) are typical when trying to whip up a group to go to war and kill and risk life and limb. But, as history shows us, they also often lead to real genocide. I am saying that there is evidence that such statements were made by Arab leaders and that this contributed to the Jewish perception that this war was a win or die affair for them. This is found in every Jewish account of the war and in many, many less partisan accounts. It is necessary to have this background to understand fully some of the events in this war

Ian and Zero claim that the basis for saying the Mufti made such statements during the war was inadequate. And, for some reason, you and others have joined them. (I say "for some reason" because the same arguments they use against the Davis and Decter source---that they were allied with a partisan group---can be used against their holy Bible of truth, Philip Mattar, and nobody is insisting that they delete claims supported by citing him.)

So while I am still trying to find out whether the Davis and Decter citation is reasonably valid, I ran across detailed specific information (quotation, date, radio station) about a slightly earlier time when the Mufti called for killing Jews. (Something both Zero and Ian said he would never do because he wouldn't use a word like "murder" and he was too much of a scholar to speak like that!) This has now been pinned down in a contemporary publication (published in 1947) to a specific radio broadcast of the type for which the Mufti was famous during his period of Nazi collaboration. Since that occurred and was written about in 1947, and in 1946 there had been affidavits (explanation of correction is given below) statements given to the Nuremberg Tribunal investigators (false or not does not matter) that the Mufti was instrumental in generating and encouraging the Final Solution, it was therefore understandable that the Jews in 1948 believed they were facing a genocidal Arab leader, one of the only identifiable Arab leaders vying for hegemonic leadership over the Palestinians. This was put into the version of the article that I wrote and reverted to about the time that you entered your question here. In the edits I made, I tried to only state clearly verifiable facts. Kriegman 03:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I defer to Shlaim again:

The War of Independence constituted a glorious contrast to the centuries of powerlessness, persecution, and humiliation. Yet the traditional Zionist narrative of the events surrounding the birth of the state of Israel was still constructed around the notion of the Jews as the victims. This narrative presents the 1948 war as a simple, bipolar no-holds-barred struggle between a monolithic and malevolent Arab adversary and a tiny peace-loving Jewish community. The biblical image of David and Goliath is frequently evoked in this narrative. Little Israel is portrayed as fighting with its back to the wall against a huge, well-armed and overbearing Arab adversary. Israel's victory in this war is treated as verging on the miraculous, and as resulting from the determination and heroism of the Jewish fighters rather than from disunity and disarray on the Arab side. This heroic version of the War of Independence has proved so enduring and resistant to revision precisely because it corresponds to the collective memory of the generation of 1948. It is also the version of history that Israeli children are taught at school. Consequently, few ideas are as deeply ingrained in the mind of the Israeli public as that summed up by the Hebrew phrase me’atim mul rabim, or "the few against the many."

If you want to explain how Israelis viewed the war just cite the many, many good sources that provide this information. Readers will then respect the article. It's as easy as that! --Ian Pitchford 12:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

And no wonder, many people overestimated Arab armies in 1948. The notion of Israel being a David fighting against Goliath dispersed quickly as the Jewish state became established, and were all but vanished after the Six-Day War.

But what does it have to to with the mufti in question, or you consistently using pro-Arab biased sources? --Heptor 13:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Heptor makes a valid point. Once again you have introduced interesting material to the discussion. But once again it does not support your position: "What does it have to to with the mufti in question?"

Indeed, I agree with Shlaim. And what is even more impressive is that I held Shlaim's standard Israeli notion of this war before I read this article. This article makes it unmistakably clear that:

• the Israelis were vastly outnumbered when considering the population of the opposing sides
• the Arabs, however, were somewhat outnumbered when considering the actual combatants
• the Arabs were divisively disorganized and were ambivalent about committing their forces to all out war (actually this should be made clearer in the article; it probably has not been made that clear because Pitchford and Zero might not want the Arab defeat to be seen as having been caused by their inability to organize and their less than fiery, burning desire to prevent a Jewish "invasion" of their "homeland")
• Jewish unity and determination were profound, precisely because of the perception that they were fighting a genocidal foe. There was no running away, no holding back. The Arabs had managed (and it didn't take a great deal of effort after the Holocaust) to convince the Jews that it was win or die for them. While wild statements of total victory are typical when trying to whip up a frenzy for effective warring, in retrospect, this was a poor strategy for the Arabs as it imposed unity and uncompromising determination on their foes.

But I see nothing in Shlaim to justify Pitchford and Zero's attempt to censor out the last point. At least the facts---i.e., genocidal statements were made to a nation of Jews immediately after the Holocaust with a known Nazi enthusiast (who was, according to the wise, objective Mattar, the leader/founder of the Palestinian National Movement) being one of the few voices of leadership for the Palestinians during the war---must be presented to the reader in an unbiased article.

And, Ian, you have now made it clear that you are not even trying to edit from NPOV. I always felt that your edits were totally one-sided, always aimed at generating sympathy for the poor, weak, honest Palestinians who were victimized by the vicious, powerful Jewish liars. But this edit makes it clear:

Although the mufti had no significant impact on the outcome of events his wartime connections with the Nazis provided plentiful material for the propaganda mills of the Zionist movement and according to historian Rashid Khalidi "laid the basis for a long-lasting portrayal of the Palestinian nationalism as intrinsically anti-semitic. An example of this approach is Joseph Schectman's The Mufti and the Fuhrer: The Rise and Fall of Haj Amin el-Husseini (New York, 1965).

Now I don't know whether Schachtman is a biased source. I didn't reference him for his opinions. Both he and Pearlman reported on a specific radio broadcast made by the Mufti and, above on this talk page, I put in links to copies of the pages of their books where they made the references. (The cover of Schachtman's Pearlman's book can be found at the same site and there is no blood and gore on it.)

The notion that Pearlman, Schachtman, and Davis and Decter are too biased to use and Sachar requires independent verification and still needs a note that says "the source has not been verified," while Mattar and Khalidi (!) can be relied on as gospel for facts and a solid basis for opinions is just too biased to believe. Has anyone been checking the stuff you and Zero have been putting in here? The basis for all of your edits needs to be checked and rechecked as carefully as you have opposed the inclusion of the Davis and Decter reference.

Despite good reasons to believe their presentation of the Mufti quotation is valid (presented more than once above), you have successfully made me wonder and I accepted the need for the inclusion of doubt when using it. But now you have made me even more suspicious of your many other edits. I think it is safe to assume that this article is highly biased by the one-sided scrutiny you have insisted on for all edits that might lead to Israelis being seen in a favorable light. Meanwhile, Mattar and Khalidi are referenced at will. Kriegman 13:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you Kriegman: "The basis for all of your edits needs to be checked and rechecked as carefully as you have opposed the inclusion of the Davis and Decter reference". That's a fine attitude for all editors to take and should be encouraged. It's also easy to check the reputations of the scholars using open-access resources such as Google Scholar and Google Print to find out who cites them and how often they are cited, e.g., Maurice Pearlman P S Joseph Schechtman P S, Avi Shlaim, Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford, P S, Rashid Khalidi, Editor of the Journal of Palestine Studies, P S. Do you get the picture? Read the reputable sources and cite what they say instead of copying second-hand material from web pages about what third-rate writers might or might not have said. --Ian Pitchford 14:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

One, you cannot reject Davis and Decter and Pearlman because of their affiliations (as Zero did) and accept Khalidi and Mattar, whose affiliations are just as one-sided. The point is not that Mattar and Khalidi are not serious scholars. The point is that the basis for Zero's dismissal of the others is irrelevant as evidenced by his acceptance of pro-Arab sources. People don't get involved in scholarly pursuits without an agenda. Bias should be assumed and not used to dismiss the content. That's all I was asking for: equal treatment. Evidence of biased affiliations should not be used to routinely dismiss any source, as Zero did with no further explanation apparently needed.

Two, I make no claim to the scholarly status of Pearlman and Schachtman. You rejected the Mufti quote because there was no contemporary reference to his saying it. And there was no reference as to where, when, and to whom he said it. Pearlman was used as a contemporary reference that pinpointed the words, time, place, and audience. That's all I relied on Pearlman for. Now you seem to be adding that we need a contemporary reference from someone who was there and that person has to be a scholar with an impeccable reputation. Hmmmn. Why do the standards seem to shift as I gather evidence? Why are the standards so unreasonably high for simple statements by a known Nazi collaborator antisemite who was known to be involved in the murder of Jews, Palestinians, Bosnians, etc.? (And, the statement itself is quite ordinary!) This is simply bias. Kriegman 14:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Zero's bias? And a correction of an error I made.

Above, Zero wrote:

As for your "evidence": Wisliceny did not testify about the Mufti at the Nuremberg trials. I've read the full transcript of his testimony (which is now on the web somewhere, perhaps at Nizkor). The claims you repeat from the Eichmann trial (where they were gratuitously added to teach the world that Arabs are Nazis) come from a magazine article by a journalist who claims to have been told these things by Wisliceny while he was in prison at Nuremberg. In Mattar's book-length biography of the mufti we read "Eichmann's own testimony confirmed...that Wisleceny had mistaken Musa 'Abdullah al-Husayni for the Mufti". (I don't know how Mattar reached that conclusion.)

My response: Your point about the Wisliceny's "testimony" is correct. This is one of those errors that is repeated ad infinitum on pro-Israel websites. To correct the issue: The declaration itself was made in February 1946 before a notary, by an architect fellow named Steiner. It was later sent to Nuremberg, where it was given to Wisliceny, and below the declaration itself Wisliceny added his own declaration that this statement was correct (an accurate description of what he said to Steiner within the past year), except for two points which he thought not to be accurate and which he corrected. At Eichmann's trial it ws introduced as evidence, thusly:

Presiding Judge: Are you using it now as a declaration by Wisliceny?

State Attorney Bach: Precisely. That is what I wanted to explain. The witness was only present when Eng. Steiner made the declaration. The importance lies not in Steiner's declaration, but in Wisliceny's confirmation of it, except for two reservations that he had. It is as such evidence that I am asking this document to be admitted, as a complement to another statement about the Mufti made by Wisliceny, which we have already submitted to the Court.

So, the problem I have Zero, is that you probably knew all this. If you did, then, rather than correct my erroneous acceptance of the way this is misrepresented, you added your own misrepresentation: "The claims you repeat from the Eichmann trial . . ." If you knew all this, then you knew that I had accepted a misrepresentation of what went down at the Eichmann trial, where it was NOT claimed that Wisliceny had testified about the Mufti at the Nuremberg trial. This is troubling (again, if you knew all this).

And, hopefully, you are not suggesting we should accept Mattar's unexplained interpretation of events. Kriegman 17:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll make this my last comment. Everybody is biased. Some are also scholars who assess evidence meticulously in order to reach a conclusion and then present their findings with care in peer-reviewed publications. Such scholars are well known in their various fields. They are well-regarded and their work is cited regularly by their colleagues. Your claim that Israelis feared annihilation because of things said by the mufti is original research based on what you've read on various websites. You have't attributed the conclusion to anyone of either good reputation or bad. Your original research cannot be added to this article. --Ian Pitchford 19:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me sum this up. At first, it was claimed that the Grand Mufti didn't say so (Zero: "You won't find this [quotation] in a contemporary account, even as a second-hand report."). Then, he was unimportant (Ian: "[...] his significance after the war isn't explained in the article at all because he had none."). Kriegman provided references to support that he said so, and was considered important by many people. And now, you claim that saying that Jews feared for their lifes beacause the enemy's supreme religious leader in the region, with all weight this bears in pious Middle East, vowed to kill all Jews, the leader who accidentially also was one of those who actively, and in part (actually about 1/3) successfully, worked for the mentioned cause a few years earlier is original research? Give me a break, grammatically analyzing the latter sentence is more a research than that. --Heptor 21:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll repeat: "You won't find this [quotation] in a contemporary account, even as a second-hand report." and none has been given. I just looked at every reference to the Mufti in the Palestine Post from Nov 1947 to Aug 1948. Nada. This whole episode is a disgraceful attempt at portraying the 1948 war as one between Jews and Nazis. This makes a mockery of both historical fact and Wikipedia standards. If Ian and I wanted to play by such rules it would be easy: "Where did they come by such a measure of cruelty, like Nazis? ...Is there no more humane way of expelling the inhabitants than by such methods?" (Written by the leader of the Jewish National Fund in the Galilee in 1948 after being briefed by a government official on the behavior of Jewish soldiers. Full citation available.) Finding a dozen things like that, all of them sourced to primary documents that still exist (not claims about radio broadcasts that someone later claimed to have heard) would be easy. The reason we are not adding things like that to the article is that we have standards. --Zero 08:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The reference that he was saying that in 1944, and reference that he was saying that in 1948. All those referenses provided by Kriegman earlier. He was saying thing like this on many occasions. And not only was he saying let's kill Jews, he also knowingly collaborated with the Nazis who were indeed killing Jews.

What this is is an attempt to portray the Mufti as an active Nazi collaborator, which he was. It does not portray other Arab leaders as Nazi collaborators. You mentioned that other Arab leaders distanced themselves from the Mufti. I think you should provide reference and include this information into the article. --Heptor 14:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no year later than 1944 mentioned on the page you claim discusses 1948. In fact, as far as I can tell, no claims about 1948 are made in any of the scans from Pearlman's and Schechtman's books on that web site. As to the Mufti being a Nazi collaborator, of course he was. That is where we started. --Zero 09:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. This is from 1944, as is written in the article. --Heptor 10:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

References

Ian, when you provide references in footnotes, would you please put them in more standard form? Read this article to see what I mean: http://library.osu.edu/sites/guides/cbegd.html. In addition, I think including the ISBN number would help. --Heptor 10:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice Heptor. You must be looking at some other article as the footnotes are in standard format and the full references and ISBNs are given. Please note that you've deleted large amounts of sourced material against Wikipedia policy and you've restored material dsputed by the other editors (without following your own advice above). Please don't let his happen again. It's having a very negative impact on the structure and validity of the article. --Ian Pitchford 11:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

There has been a lengthy discussion about validity of the material I included. As you might remember, Kriegman is the original contributor. I hope he too will follow up and use standard format on his references. Aside from that, it seems to me that all the material he included is sourced well. Could you please sum up your objections against including the material, if you have any? Otherwise, please apply further edits to Kriegmans version. --Heptor 12:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd be glad to sum up the objections:

1. The mufti's collaboration with the Nazis is already mentioned in the article, before the point at which you mention it again. Why do we need it twice?
2. Information on the mufti's forces and their defeat is already mentioned in the article, before the point at which you mention it again. Why do we need it twice?
3. No source is given for the claim that "The situation was not made easier by the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni, closely collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War".
4. No source is given for the claim that "In the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history) led to a widespread belief among the Israelis that they were facing a genocidal enemy."
5. No source is given for the claim that "The Mufti, [was] one of the few identified leaders of the Palestinian Arabs".
6. In restoring this unsourced and disputed material (supported by only one other editor) detailed material sourced to works by senior scholars has been deleted without explanation. Why?

I'd be pleased not to have to waste any more time on this. --Ian Pitchford 12:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for replying so quickly. I will answer to your objections point by point:

1. The mufti's collaboration with the Nazis is already mentioned in the article, before the point at which you mention it again. Why do we need it twice?

Indeed we don't, but the explanation provided by Kriegman goes about how detailed this cooperation was, while the old text make it look like the connection was something Zionists made up. The text now contains

Although the mufti had no significant impact on the outcome of events, according to historian Rashid Khalidi his wartime connections with the Nazis "laid the basis for a long-lasting portrayal of Palestinian nationalism as intrinsically anti-semitic"

while new text provides much more information:

Haj Amin al-Husayni, closely collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War. [...]

The Mufti [...] had spent the second half of WWII in Germany making radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemy.

Everything is properly sources in the Nuremberg Trials, see Talk:1948_Arab-Israeli_War#The_Mufti.27s_role_in_creating_the_belief_that_the_Arab_goal_was_eliminating_the_Jews, point 5.

1. Information on the mufti's forces and their defeat is already mentioned in the article, before the point at which you mention it again. Why do we need it twice?

Just so this is clear, this discussion is about including a passage about extend of mufti's nazi collaboration. You may review disputed differences here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=28665995&oldid=28656158

No information about state of the mufti's forces is added there. It is indeed impractical to edit the article further before a previous dispute is resolved.

1. No source is given for the claim that "The situation was not made easier by the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni, closely collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War".

The evidence to his collaboration is provided, refer to my answer to the previous point

1. No source is given for the claim that "In the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history) led to a widespread belief among the Israelis that they were facing a genocidal enemy."

I would say it's plain obvious, but indeed, sources should be provided as to how this idespread belief was.

1. No source is given for the claim that "The Mufti, [was] one of the few identified leaders of the Palestinian Arabs".

Can you identify other Palestinian leaders?

1. In restoring this unsourced and disputed material (supported by only one other editor) detailed material sourced to works by senior scholars has been deleted without explanation. Why?

I believe at least three editors support that this material stays: me, Kriegman and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. I would also like it to be noted that the dispute began when Zero removed a similar quotation by the Mufti, from something he supposed to have said in 1948. His explanation then was lack of proper sourcing, and Kriegman replaced it with a similar quotation from 1944. Still, both you and and Zero seem to oppose this quotation, with Zero even reverting to name-calling.

It is indeed impractical to edit an article that is under a dispute. As I mentioned earlier, the dispute is not about material you added later.

I'd be pleased not to have to waste any more time on this. --Ian Pitchford 12:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I am really sorry that you consider this debate a waste of your time. Still I believe that there is too much one-sided information in this article already. The sentence "his wartime connections with the Nazis "laid the basis for a long-lasting portrayal of Palestinian nationalism as intrinsically anti-semitic", that almost makes it seem like Mufti's extensive collaboration with the Nazis is something Jews invented, is one good example of angled phrasing. There are examples of similarly biased wording in other places. I therefore have to ask that if this article is to remain in its present form, it should be marked with the NPOV tag.

With best regards

Heptor 18:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Protection

Given that no progress in any particular direction is being made, and given that all of us I guess are getting fairly sick of all this reverting, I have protected the page for now. If you really want to keep fighting the good fight without a rest, just ask and I'll unprotect it again. Meanwhile, trying to reach some sort of agreement on this Talk page might be a nice idea. --Zero 11:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't even look. No time, right now. To make sure that Ian and Zero aren't too disappointed: I'll be back shortly :-)

But without looking, I'll venture a guess that the page just happened to be protected when it was in a version leaning toward what Zero liked. If this wasn't the case, I am pleasantly surprised (and impressed ;-)

See m:The Wrong Version. --Zero 22:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

But whether or not it was, Zero, don't you think you should have asked another administrator to get involved? Isn't this a violation of administrator policy? Even though you offered to unprotect it, why should we have to ask your permission to edit a page when you are one of the parties involved in the disagreement? This seems awfully similar to the issue for which you were temporarily de-sysopped. Kriegman 17:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't similar. In that case I blocked a user whom I considered a vandal. The AC disagreed (but banned that user for a year anyway). In this case, the page has been an obvious candidate for temporary protection for quite a while and I doubt that any sysop would disagree with that. You are probably right that it would have been better to ask someone else to do it, but it is completely certain that the other person would have done it. So the overall effect would have been the same. If you would prefer me to unprotect the page, I'll do it, but then I'll ask a different sysop to protect it again. Given the huge number of recent reverts on this page, it is completely certain that would be protected again. --Zero 22:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you at least not call the war "The Catastrophe" in the second paragraph under the great uprising section? This name is hardly NPOV. I understand the passage it describing the Palestinian POV, but I still don't think it is necessary.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

You, Heptor and Kriegman are systematically deleting content from Professors Shapira, Khalidi, Shlaim, and van Creveld in order to insert fake quotations, bizarre unsourced opinion and what you think might be plausible conclusions. This is a simple matter: do we want readers to know what the scholars have written (including the very best Israeli historians) in peer-reviewed publications by the leading university presses or do we want content written by Wikipedia editors? By your reckoning Khalidi cannot be quoted as referring to "the Catastrophe" even in quotation marks, van Creveld can't be quoted as describing Wingate's Christian Zionism or his training of the night squads to kill one in ten as an interrogation method; Shapira can't be quoted about "mass indiscriminate killings" or anything else for that matter as all of her comments about the revolt were deleted by Moshe, Kriegman and Heptor don't want readers to know that Khalidi describes Schechtman's work as a typical example of Zionist propaganda intended to portray the Palestinians as intrinsically anti-semitic (and I guess if I include Efaim Karsh's description of Schechtman as an "official Zionist writer" that will be deleted too), Khalidi's comment about "anti-zionist activism" has been re-written by Moshe, purely from his POV, as "anti-zionist riots" (presumably because, well, civil disobedience is a sort of riot) and he wants to sum up the section on the revolt by saying "In fact, it is possible that the number of Arabs murdered by Arabs constituted the greatest number of the victims of violence of this period." Well sure, and in fact it's possible that all of those killed were liquidated by Martians, but perhaps we could quote what the historians say? If this the sort of article you want to write then just get on with it. I'll write something else advising historians and genuine scholars to stay away from this nonsense. --Ian Pitchford 04:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Dam right we would delete that! We would also delete any passage describing the World as Round, any philosphy contradicting the offical Roman Catholic Church, or any new science that disagrees with Ptolemy, Aristotle or Galen! FOR WE ARE FOLLOWERS OF THE ONE TRUE FAITH!  :)- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC) P.S. I am being sarcastic

• Zero's "protection"

In response to a criticism of his purely unbiased protectionism, Zero wrote, "See m:The Wrong Version." This is a totally inadequate response. It is true, in an edit war with reversions going back and forth, it is impossible for protection to be imposed at a moment when balance is reached; if such a balance existed, there would be no edit war. So, almost by definition, when protection is called for and imposed, both sides may feel wronged and one side is likely to feel more wronged then the other. That is PRECISELY why an editor who is involved in the editing conflict must never be the one to use administrative powers. Zero's response is either disingenuous or he still does not understand why he was de-sysopped for a violation that was similar in this respect.

In any case, Zero, please do unprotect the page. Please leave it unprotected for a day or two before YOU call for administrative intervention. Better yet, given what has gone down, I would suggest that you not be the person who calls for administrative intervention. There are other administrators (GOP, Ramallite) who have recently participated in this debate. They or others will do so again. Kriegman 13:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The page is now open again for further destruction. --Zero 00:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Mufti Nazi Quote

Okay, I have just waded through an unconscionable amount of talk on this subject, and reached the following conclusions, both for and against including the disputed passage.

For: The quote, to me, cannot in any way be characterized as "fake." I did some quick Google research myself and came up with this [[2]], this [[3]], and this [[4]]. Indeed, all evidence points to the Mufti having said it, and no evidence at all contradicts this. Rather, there are very nicely argued assertions about why it is that the Mufti would not have said such thing, cannot be absolutely, categorically, beyond-all-doubt proven to have said such a thing (and demanding ear-witness verification is setting waaaay too high a standard for WP, or any encyclopedia, for that matter), and an assertion that the mufti's statement, even if true, is irrelevant to the article in question. I think it is obvious to the point of stupefaction that the Mufti would have been highly sympathetic to the sentiments he is quoted as expressing, therefore, how is it such a stretch to imagine that he did in fact say them? And nowhere did I see any scholar, individual, or even a crazed lunatic blogger asserting that the Mufti was misquoted. The quote, all by itself, is totally wiki-ready. Against: The only legitimate question here is, what role did the Mufti's stance (as typified by the quote) have in the Israeli's perception of their own danger? The article has stated The situation was not made easier by the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni, closely collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War and the Mufti's statements led to a widespread belief among the Israelis that they were facing a genocidal enemy. The first sentence is not encyclopedic -- "situation was not made easier?" What does this mean? Source? And if there was a "widespread belief," it should be documentable. In the absence of that, the quote should be left out. If those things can be provided, the quote is legitimate and ought to be included. On a peripheral matter, regardless of the outcome of this debate, I think it is highly inappropriate, to say the very least, for an admin to lock a page he has been debating on. IronDuke 00:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

None of the pages you link to even mention the alleged 1948 quotation. We cannot put words into someone's mouth just because we think those words represent their thinking; we have to show that they actually uttered those words. By the way, there is not a scrap of evidence that he openly called for killing of Jews in 1929 either. The official enquiry even praised him for trying to quell the riots then. --Zero 00:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I confess to being confused. The talk section wwas huge and I may have overlooked something. I thought the main issue here was inclusion of the March, 1944 quote, which two of the sources I cited have. The other confirms that the Mufti was very interested in killing Jews (which supports the conclusion that his "controversial" statement was likely, at least). Was there another issue? IronDuke 00:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Being confused is a reasonable reaction to the huge amount of <avoids rude word> above. Remember that this is an article on a war in 1948; it is not an article on the Mufti of Jerusalem. The main dispute started over an alleged 1948 quotation for which no decent source has been found. Then it was claimed that it should be included with a weak statement that some people dispute it, then that it should be included because some people believed it whether it was true or not (which is also without any historical support), then that it should be included because it shaped thinking on the subject later on. It might be appropriate to mention the Mufti's wartime Nazi collaboration in the right context, but this drive to insert doubtful quotations has to be resisted. That goes for things that are alleged to have been said on the radio in 1944 (Who reported them? Nobody says.). There is a reason why serious historians studiously avoid such uncheckable claims; we should not have lower standards here. --Zero 01:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. What 1948 statement was being discussed? IronDuke 01:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

""I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" (Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter, Eds., Myths and facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Washington DC: Near East Report, 1982, p. 199)." Myths and Facts is a standard propaganda tract. No date or place or reference to the original source is given. Searches have so far failed to turn up any contemporary reference even as an unsupported claim. --Zero 01:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Two things. First, for the record (though I stopped reading the above a long time ago), I still am dubious on the quote, and I am not sure why there is so much fighting to see it included when the point can be made without it. Second, if the authors want to make a strong point about the Mufti, they may instead want to do it visually through the cartoon at the bottom of the contemporary May 16, 1948 New York Times available at Image:NYTimes 1948 Jews in Arab.jpg. Regardless, the Mufti was certainly not key to the 1948 war, and we should really not overblow his importance in the conflict. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think what's at issue here is whether the Jews were justified in feeling that they were the target of a new genocide, and what impact that may have had on their actions. If they believed (correctly or not) that genocide was imminent, that is an important fact, and it is important to source it. As for the 1948 issue, I remain confused. ""I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" (Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter, Eds., Myths and facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Washington DC: Near East Report, 1982, p. 199)." Where does it say 1948 here? And the quote that we're dealing with, as I understand it, is ...during his March 1, 1944 broadcast [the Mufti] stated: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion." (This is slightly complicated by the fact that the quote is variously translated as "kill," "murder," and "slaughter." Any Arabic speakers who want to shed light on this should feel free.) But the question is, did this statement, made four years before 1948, have a real effect on the Jews' attitude towards the Arabs at the time? I reiterate my earlier point: it is necessary to provide proof that this statement and/or those like it had a profound effect on Jewish/Israeli attitudes of the time. It is not necessary to provide proof and a quote from someone that they heard the quote on their wireless in 1944. IronDuke 02:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You've got the point clearly. The Mufti was the only? main? an important? identified leader of the Palestinians during the period prior to the formation of Israel and at the time of the war. He was the top religious figure in a region in which religion and politics are very close. He is considered the creator of Palestinian nationalism by none other than Mattar (who both Zero and Pitchford turn to for scholarly verification of any and everything). He was notoriously known to the Jews as the leader of riots and virulent antisemitism. He was found guilty of such and exiled, I believe, though he was pardoned, allowed to come back, and placed in the Mufti-ship. He then was involved in a murderous riot and (to avoid prosecution) left the region to go to work as a Nazi collaborator where he made regular broadcasts that included the 1944 statement. He worked closely with the Nazi exterminators and organized genocidal killing squads for which he was indicted for war crimes. The point of the 1944 quotation is that it, as well as all of the above was well-reported and known to the Jews of Israel (See Pearlman's 1947 book referenced above) in 1948. The Jews, immediately after the Holocaust, could not conceivably have been oblivious to the fact that one of, if not the major figure vying for leadership of the Palestinian people (and especially their militants) was a genocidal antisemite.

But to make the connection more clearly: There are innumerable sources that can be cited to show that the Jews thought they were fighting against a genocidal foe, and I believe that the 1948 quotation from Davis and Decter is a sufficient citation for this quotation. Note that it has been widely disseminated and requoted/referenced and yet was not refuted by those who knew the Mufti and how he spoke. Rather, in most of the second half of the last century, his political allies tried to distance themselves from him because of his widely known, vicious antisemitism. It is only later, as a new generation came along and the Holocaust began to fade in political importance, that the Mufti was embraced as a heroic Palestinian nationalist. The 1948 quotation, which I believe should be used in the article, explicitly makes clear the link between the Mufti's words and the perception of genocidal intentions during this war.

Since Zero and Pitchford do not question the Mufti's virulent antisemitism and Nazi collaboration or the fact that these were wellknown, in their attempt to deny that Israelis had any valid reasons to think they were up against a genocidal foe (and this assessment of their motives is based on an incomplete but fairly extensive examination of the pattern of their edits in other articles, not just this one), they have made an issue of the legitimacy of the quotation. So, I found an equavalent one from 1944 that was known and that, in the context of the 1948 war and the Mufti's perceived leadership role, would have had the same effect on the perception of genocidal intention.

So, despite the claim (with which GOP agrees) that the Mufti was not central to the 1948 war (and this is not being disputed here), Pitchford and Zero go much further and say the Mufti had no significant role or influence and was irrelevant in the mind of the participants (which their own cherished sources show is untrue). C'mon! They are simply censoring a known, well-established aspect of the story with the claim that "if he said it he was insignificant and anyway you can't prove he said it." As you noted, this is taken to the absurd level of requiring a historical report to say whose ears vibrated to the sound of the radio broadcast before it can be accepted. Next they will want to know the birthdate and nationality of the listener to verify that the person existed. After that they will require the frequency of the molecular vibrations that fell on his or her ears. It's just biased censorship. Kriegman 12:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

On further reflection . . .

The Khalidi reference I just removed is clearly POV; indeed it is is Khalidi's POV. If presented in a much more mild form, the kernel of truth within Khalidi's viewpoint could be presented in NPOV. If you want to present Khalidi's POV, then it should be clearly stated as a POV with balance from the other side, rather than "Khalidi said ... " and in the references "Khalidi is a scholar with xx credentials." The former would be a NPOV to present the POV's that have come to exist. The latter is simply using Khalidi's POV to present your own.

While I think the article is replete with such POV (since it has been dominated by Zero and Pitchford) we will have to get to each of the points one at a time. Meanwhile, Ian, do you know who Zero is? Ian at least has a clear agenda, which leaks out all over the place with POV edits but which, along with his identity, is not hidden. Zero on the other hand, tries to hide behind an aura of objectivity that has bamboozled the Wikipedia community. His relentless anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian editing---sometimes crudely biased but more often subtle yet unmistakable---makes it clear that he has an agenda as equally biased as Ian's. Why do you hide your identity, Zero? Is it because your identity would make your bias absurdly clear?

Zero is clearly no amateur in this area and he makes very few edits outside of his area of expertise. He came to the Wikipedia with a clear agenda and has successfully fooled the community to the point where they made this POV warrior an administrator. Again, Ian, do you know who Zero is? Be careful with whom you are associated. Kriegman 14:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been able to keep up with the discussion here (I lose track to quickly) but I am troubled by some of the latest edits for the following reasons:

• Removing a quotation by Khalidi, where the text clearly states "according to Khalidi", is inappropriate. The appropriate thing to do is to add an opposing argument (such as "According to xxx, the Palestinian Nationalists were anti-Semitic regardless of the involvement of the Mufti" or something like that, should a source to that effect exist, which I highly doubt).
• The statement "The situation was not made easier by the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni, closely collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War." is unsourced. The reason this is worth noting is that this becomes the editor's own original research (and I have no idea who added it, I'm not going to go through the history in order to try to remain neutral). This sentence is claiming causation between the mufti's personal actions and the outcome of the war, and it is important that a source for this exist.
• Ditto for "In the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history) led to a widespread belief among the Israelis that they were facing a genocidal enemy."
• When quoting a source, we need to do just that - quote the source. Khalidi used the word "catastrophe" (by which he meant the Nakba and is between quotation marks) and not "Israeli victory", so it's not appropriate to alter a direct quotation from a source.
• (this is for your own info, not for the article) I asked a history professor from Birzeit University about the mufti the other day, and his response was that he was indeed the nationalist leader of the Palestinians at one point but, by 1948, had been almost totally discredited and marginalized by the other Arab countries (notably Jordan's Abdullah) who had their own ambitions in Palestine. As for the Nazi link, this professor did (obviously) verify this and explained it as a situation where the mufti assumed that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and this was before the Holocaust (or before the mufti knew about what the Nazis had done). This is just one historian's thoughts and I don't endorse them myself (growing up in Palestine, the Israelis censored our textbooks and we were never taught about the modern history of the region), but I thought I'd bring it here for your information.
• Please refrain from attacking the integrity or motives of other editors. Every editor has their bias, including everybody on this page, but singling out an editor like the paragraph above in inappropriate.

Ramallite ^(talk) 16:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)