Talk:Amin al-Husseini/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Anti-zionism

Wasn't his anti-Zionism based on opposition to, and fear of, Jews flooding Palestine - which is exactly what happened? Therefore it was not grounded in nationalism or antisemitism?203.184.41.226 (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead is : "Historians dispute whether his fierce opposition to Zionism was grounded in nationalism or antisemitism or a combination of both."

It is not clear when he became antisemite and how deep he was. Assuming he was antisemite as soon as 1918, his antizionism and fear of the Jews may have come from there.

As far as I know, nobody except Mattar even tried to answer this question. Most historian just consider his mind never evolved. Mattar thinks he became antisemite after the 1936-39 revolt.

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Relaible source noticeboard

This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.--Tritomex (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Quote with source

The Nation Associate and entitled The Arab Higher Committee: Its Origins, Personnel and Purposes. The Documentary Record Submitted to the United Nations, May 1947 Document in the appendix authored by Haj Amin:

Paragraph 7 (out of eight paragraphs) in this draft of the statement reads:

"Germany and Italy recognize the illegality of the 'Jewish Home in Palestine.' They accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the right to resolve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the interests of the Arabs, and by the same method that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries. Under this agreement no Jewish immigration into the Arab countries should be permitted." (my italics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miamosa (talk • contribs) 17:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

An alleged draft document, without evidence of who wrote it or that it was ever sent to anyone, published by a political action committee. No thanks. Zero^talk 02:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate text

Some anon wants to insert this:

During 1942 rendering a plan of destruction of the Jews in Palstine
(ref)[1] Einsatzkommando of the Panzer Army afrika, Elimination of the Jewish National Home in Palestine:The Einsatzkommando of the Panzer Army Africa, 1942, pages 4 and 28, Klaus Michael Mallmann and Martin Cuppers(/ref)(ref)palestine&f=false, Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews in Palestine(/ref)

Besides "During 1942 rendering a plan of destruction of the Jews in Palstine" not being English, it is inappropriate for this page. Mallmann and Cuppers did not succeed in connecting the Mufti to the Einsatzkommando in their paper. The best they can do is "During this period [the year before the Einsatzkommando was formed] the Mufti was, as mentioned, directly assisted by Obersturmführer Hans-Joachim Weise, who later was assigned to Rauff’s Einsatzkommando." Very weak indeed. Zero^talk 13:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

from page 28 The capture of Tobruk, at the end of June 1942, was the starting signal both for the RHSA and el-Husseini to render the plan for the destruction of the Jews in Palestine into more concrete terms (I'm typing here as I don't know how to copy from a pdf file)

As that was a quote from the first quoted book, the text did not talk about connecting Mufti to Einsatzkommando but gave a reference to him to the a plan about exterminating or destruction as the author used Jews in Palestine. the Issue is not about the connection between the corps to the Mufti but about the fact he had a plan to exterminate the Jews in Palestine

In Hitler's Shadow: Nazi War Criminals, U. S. Intelligence, and the Cold War reference to the a plan to of mass murder of Jews in Palestine

In A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic Jihad talks about Mufti connection to mass murder of Jews in Palestine

In The Palestine Exchange it says Husseini advocated the extermination of Jews in palestine

In Reference Guide to the Nazis and Arabs During the Holocaust the book says the mufti expressed that the Jews of Palestine should be disposed in the same way as in europe

In the latter edits I fixed the broken link and linked to another book that also talk about the same info.109.226.53.18 (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The big problem with this subject is the huge amount of dross that is copied from one author to another. Please read the book and see what actual evidence is presented that el-Husseini knew anything about a German plan or was in any way involved in it. You won't find any because despite their best efforts the authors don't have any. It is all surmise and innuendo. That's why in the peer-reviewed version of their work they don't make such a claim but only present some circumstantial evidence that it was plausible. Even the actual existence of a plan regarding the Palestinian Jews is disputed. For example, in Breitman, Golda and Naft, US Intelligence and the Nazis (p154) says: "In the summer of 1942, as commander of a Security Police detachment in North Africa, Rauff fl ew from Munich to Field Marshal Erwin Rommel’s headquarters at Tobruk, reportedly in order to discuss the liquidation of Jews in Cairo once it was captured by the German Africa Corps. Disgusted with the idea, the “Desert Fox” apparently refused to discuss the matter and sent Rauff on his way." The source given is the same one Mallman and Cuppers claim shows there was an actual plan to exterminate the Jews of Palestine. Zero^talk 01:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It is beside the point, but a look at Mallmann and Cuppers book is illuminating. For example, "when called before the Shaw Commission, el-Husseini invoked The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to prove the existence of a Jewish plot in Palestine." It's a blatant falsehood. In fact el-Husseini invoked a book by Norman Bentwich. Zero^talk 13:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Der Spiegel articel from September 10, 1948

To the concerned wikipedian:

This may interests some of the wikepedian's who are working on this Page of Haj Amin al-Husseini.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a proper English translation:

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-44419499.html

(2602:306:CE84:7499:750E:913C:A3DA:D6A9 (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC))

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE84:7499:750E:913C:A3DA:D6A9 (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC) 

No author, has timeline highly confused, includes myths, basically useless. But thanks for showing it. Zero^talk 22:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Operation ATLAS

Operation Atlas was alledgedly dedicated to poison wells and alledgedly ordered by al-Husseini. All this is reported from one source (Bar Zohar) who doesn't provide his own primary sources, if any. More, Bar Zohar is not an historian and it is only his biography of Ben Gurion that is reported by historians.

All this should be deleted from the article per wp:undue for 1 sabotage operation and lack of wp:v for the story of the poison. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd wait a week or so. I haven't had time to review all the documents, but it would appear that Husayni was consulted, and gave the departing 5 paratroopers a speech of encouragement. The poison stuff sounds ratshit, true. But I think we have to go slowly to make sure we do not err by hasty removal. Once the picture is sorted out on the OpAtlas page, no doubt a good part of what is written here will have to be removed. What is certain is that the drafter of that article deliberately misrepresented facts (Salameh shot down by Irgun at the very springs which were the putative object of the poison-Tel-Aviv plot!! when he was mortally wounded defending an Arab townlet under siege).Quite disgraceful editing really.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We are not in a hurry.

In any case, 5 paratroopers is nothing in the context of the WWII.

Maybe we should add, later, a full section about the demonization of the Mufti.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, technically, that the source citing this crap is Medoff, otherwise a very good historian, and eminently RS. One has to disentangle it from that source, presumably. Things like this were, one is tempted to suppose, cheap sops to Husayni to pay him for his useless rants over the radio, though I stand corrected if further evidence to the contrary comes to light. Only three were delegated as combatants, as opposed to Latuf for political liaisons, and the German radio operator. You may have a point re its uses for demonization.Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Some material from Finkelstein about the "Mufit machination" : [2]. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

original research

One cannot infer from a 1961 book what "most scholars" believe today. One cannot infer it from one's own survey of the literature either; that is a long-established principle on Wikipedia. One can only state that an opinion is the majority opinion on the basis of a reliable source stating that it is the majority opinion, and even then one must wary of the fact that polemic scholars usually claim their own opinions to be the majority opinion. Zero^talk 04:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Would this be acceptable ?

The question of the antisemitism of the Mufti is controversial. Scholars, such as new historian Benny Morris, traditional historian Howard Sachar, his biographer Zvi Elpeleg or political scientist Gilbert Achcar picture him as an antisemite. Others, such as his biographer Philip Mattar or French historian Henry Laurens nuanced this and the evolution of his feelings against Jews and Zionism. The fact that this antisemitism was exagerated for political purposes is supported by American historian Peter Novick, Israeli historian Idith Zertal or political scientist Norman Finkestein.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this is getting closer to a consensus, though the last sentence is probably not what we want. A good interpretation is, IMHO, best captured by Achcar, ie that 1) the Mufti was 'unquestionably' antisemitic -- not just anti-Zionist -- AND 2) that Zionists have used his biography as the cause of vilification against him personally, and to delegitimize Palestinian nationalism in general by associating it with the taint of Nazism. Achcar, to his credit, does not attempt to evade the charges of the Mufti's antisemitism, nor to absolve the Palestinian leadership of failing to properly educate their polity on the differences between anti-colonialism and antisemitism. He also criticizes the Zionists who (in his opinion) mis-use this history for their own partisan propagandistic purposes. Both of these points should be clearly reflected in this article.Ronreisman (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked this against what we have yet, but it is a good summary. What I object to is ontological descriptions that simplify a life. One is not born an antisemite, or a murderer, or a realtor, or whatever: one becomes, as Nietzsche once phrased it, what one is. For half of his life he is dealing with Jews, arguing and wrestling politically with them, and the concrete evidence for 'antisemitism' is scarce. When his opposition turned to military methods, failure, flight and exile in Germany, he became a classic antisemite. True Hitler dealt with Jews in Vienna, but was probably still an antisemite, because Germany had an intense long history of antisemitism, it was in the air one breathed from childhood. All the evidence of his biography tells us that he became an antisemite in the classic sense some time in the 30s, - as he struggled unsuccessfully against the Zionist project. Since it is one of the tritest memes in the world of I/P discourse that opposition to Zionism is a sign of antisemitism, the use of the latter tends to insinuate that his opposition as a Palestinian Arab nationalism, to Zionism was motivated by succumbing at the outset to an age-old racial enmity. I.e. it plays into polemics that are intended to sway readers with a prejudice about the nationalism he represented. What we are looking for here is what specialists in the literature think, and that is a very small constituency. A majority of one or two in a field of several is not worth anguishing about, though if we have an up-to-date Husayni specialist saying that, then, as Zero says, it goes in. Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

My objection is similar to Nish's, namely that one cannot take a judgement of a part of someone's life and apply it regardless of evidence to all of his life. It isn't merely a mistake in logic, but a device used on purpose to delegitimise the anti-Zionist activism that al-Husseini engaged in for decades before he threw in his lot with the Nazis. That's the real reason anyone even cares about whether he was an antisemite or not. Zero^talk 11:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

There are many reasons to get the facts straight about Haj Amin Husseini. One reason to care about the role anti-Judaism in the formation of Haj Amin's brand of 'Nationalism' is that the article should reflect the complexity of the factual record in order for reasonable people to disagree about their interpretation. Nothing good will be achieved, IMHO, by slanting the facts because some other partisans may (or may not) distort the facts in some future argument.Ronreisman (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

There are many anti-Zionists who cannot be de-legitimized by the Grand Mufti's Naziism, incidentally, simply because they have nothing in common with his pro-fascist and anti-Jewish legacy, and they don't try to engage in historical revisionism when they are supporting the rights of the Palestinian People.Ronreisman (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Where is the reliable source that supports the following phrase: 'In terms of his initial formation, Haj Amin was far from being an antisemite.' ? I think we can all agree that the statement that he was 'far from being an antisemite' during the time of the 'initial formation' of his political career is not supportable by any reputable source, and so this misleading language should be modified. If there is evidence for this extraordinary claim, then please present the source. Ronreisman (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The source is in the note you are citing from. What's the problem? Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

One problem is that the 'source' is a translation (with no provenance) of a passage from a French book (that's apparently never been officially translated) by French scholar Henry Laurens. At the very least it would be good to see the original French passage, so that we could judge the accuracy of the translated phrases. In fact, other editors in the past have 'undone' entries because the refs were in non-English language, so it's may be debatable if untranslated books are even admissible as sources in the English Wikipedia. Putting the language issue aside for the moment, there's the larger issue that we are taking a *single* source to make a fairly extraordinary claim. It may be acceptable to frame this statement with appropriate context, e.g. 'According to Henry Laurens 'In terms of this initial formation ....' The readers should not be given the false impression that this is a matter of scholarly consensus, since that would be a case of actively spreading mis-information.Ronreisman (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NONENG about non-English sources. There is no debate about their admissibility. Zero^talk 07:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Henry Laurens bases his analysis from Philip Mattar's biography. So we have the chance to have a scholar who summarizes the analysis of another scholar on the topic. Laurens also adds other arguments. That's a perfect RS. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Nish's statements: "True Hitler dealt with Jews in Vienna, but was probably still an antisemite, because Germany had an intense long history of antisemitism, it was in the air one breathed from childhood." It's not that simple, Nish. My mother was Viennese Jewish girl until the family fled in 1938 for Croatia, Hungary, France, Italy, and eventually (in 1940) the States. They had many non-Jewish friends, and were shocked by the change in attitudes (eg anti-semitism) that occurred immediately after the Anshluss (German annexation of Austria). In fact, the situation in pre-war Germany & Austria was very similar in many ways to the current situation for Jews in the States. Lots of intermarriage, assimilation, and National identification over religious affiliation. There are many reputable Refs that document this. The canard that the Germans were 'breathing' anti-Jewish hatred since childhood is a too-pat oversimplification that impairs one's ability to understand the history of that era, IMHO. Re: " opposition to Zionism is a sign of antisemitism" -- well, though not all anti-Zionists are anti-Jewish, most folk who are anti-Jewish are also anti-Zionist. The notion that anti-Zionism is *never* prompted by anti-semitism is simply not defensible. The Mufit's "opposition as a Palestinian Arab nationalism, to Zionism" may actually have been "motivated by succumbing at the outset to an age-old racial enmity" -- i.e. his opposition to Zionism may have been inspired by his anti-Jewish bias, and that bias may have been based on 'age-old' racial prejudice against the Jews. In fact, most scholarly sources that support just these points. Wikipedia articles should present the full complexity of these issues, not suppress facts because it may not support a particular partisan point of view. Let the facts fall where they may, and let the readers read the truth. Ronreisman (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

"Let the facts fall where they may, and let the readers read the truth."

• Myths and Facts
• Tell the children the truth

:-) Pluto2012 (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ronreisman, you wrote "overwhelming and unquestionable evidence" while citing a source that starts by mentioning two historians who questioned it. You have to stop treating this as your own personal essay. Neither Wikipedia nor myself care in the least what you consider unquestionable. Zero^talk 07:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@Zero0000 : I maintain that the preponderance of scholarly opinion is that there is "overwhelming and unquestionable evidence" supporting the proposition that the Mufti was antisemitic. I've examined the various sources and they support this statement. It is not OR, and it is not my personal opinion. It is the consensus of the scholarly community.Ronreisman (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"My objection is (...) that one cannot take a judgement of a part of someone's life and apply it (...) to all of his life. It is[] (...) a device used on purpose to delegitimise the anti-Zionist activism that al-Husseini engaged in for decades before he [took the party of the Axis powers]. [Nobody] cares (...) whether he was an antisemite or not."

Zero, I agree with you write and particularly that scientists should not care whether he was antisemite or not. Anway, I wonder if we understand each other properly and I think I don't get your point precisely (?).

There are some points that cannot be avoided in Mufti's biography :

• Whether true or not, whether relevant or not, he is widely pictured as an antisemite and the question of his antisemitism is reported by nearly all scholars. Even Henry Laurens dedicated a sub-chapter of his book (I think "La question de Palestine" T.2) to the question. Zvi Elpeleg and Philip Mattar both report the issue (with a different analysis but they do).
• Given the campaign of delegitimazation of the Palestinian nationalism (eg. Karsh locates this after 1967) the question of whether Mufti's anti-Zionism was due to his nationalism or to antisemitism must be explained.

Even if my/our(?) personnal conclusion is that his nationalism preceeded his anti-Zionism that preceeded his anti-Semitism (by frustration ?), this nuance is only put forward by a minority of scholars. I read it in Philip Mattar first and Henry Laurens agrees with this. But the nuance is not reported by the others who only focused on his antisemitism even if they give a different weight to this : Zvi Elpeleg (without nuance), Gilbert Achcar (without compromise but we can feel a political agenda behing this), Howard Sachar (of course... but he is not Katz either), Benny Morris (of course... but he keeps is respect and notoriaty). Tom Segev too even if his approach is interesting : he points out that all Arabs and most British were antisemite and antizionists (for several reasons). Even Pappe before he lost credit wrote the Mufti was antisemite (I don't remember any nuance and I didn't read his book on al-Husseini familly anyway). Idith Zertal doesn't report the nuance either, on the contrary but "just" points out the unjustified psychosis that Mufti's generates in Israeli society. Note that I haven't mentionned all the authors (among whom there are unfortunately scholars) who wrote entire books on the question of Mufti's and Arabs' antisemitsm. As far as I know, the only scholar who follow you and doens't care Mufti's and Arabs antisemitism is Yoav Gelber.

Anyway, what is your suggestion ? Do you suggest we remove the section or some material or bring new one ? I don't get your point ?.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It is harder to write neutrally of Husseini (and particularly of his antisemitic turn (Wende)) than of Hitler, Himmler and Heydrich, because the evidence is inferential, subject to an historical case that had to be asserted or proven for historical reasons concerned with legitimizing a state, because opposition to Zionism is conflated with antisemitism very often and, thus contaminated by secondary source bias. Most occasional editors here wish to prove that Husseini was (a) an antisemite and (b) by implication Palestinian nationalism was fueled by personal hate, ethnic enmity, in short Islamic antisemitism.

In this highly polemical context, all editors can do is be scrupulously careful to (a) winnow out poor sources (b) dated sources (c) and set forth the (i) basic archival data used by the best modern scholars to make one interpretation or another and then (ii) add the way those scholars interpret this.

On poor sources Yehoshafat Harkabi, once hardly neutral, changed his views and said that sources trying to stick the antisemitic label on an Arab or Muslim 'mindset' were 'countless'. It certainly exists now but arose out of the struggle to establish the state of Israel:-

'It should be stated wih the utmost emphasis that Arab antisemitism is not the cause of the conflict but one of its results. . Unlike Western Christian anti-Semitism, it is not the result of generations of incitement which have created an archetype in the popular consciousness, although there are elements in Islam on which anti-Semitism could build.' Gilbert Achcar, The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives, Macmillan 2010 p.255

My bias is to give weight to scholars who actually work the archives bearing on any point, and who preferably have a command of all the relevant sources. That means in this case, Mattar, Elpeleg and Laurens (who has a mastery command of the relevant Arabic documents which few of your list have). Achcar's position is more nuanced at least in his book, and can't be reduced to that paper, by the way, since he underwrites Mattar's conclusion that the mufti's attitudes underwent an 'evolution' from the 'Palestine phase' (1920-1937) where he was conservative and collaborated with the British, and an exile phase of intransigence and collaboration with the Nazis.

In any case, the paragraph on the Holocaust is problematical in a general sense.

It starts with the dismissal of those who doubt his knowledge of the holocaust by citing first Schwanitz then Achcar re summer 1943 (the Holocaust argument is not about his knowledge of it, but his participation in it). Then it adds the concentration camp bit (1942), which however on the evidence had nothing to do with the holocaust at that time, but was a showplace to convince visitors that it was for reeducation, and then it moves onto Wisliceny's almost universally challenged testimony. In narrative terms that should be rewritten chronologically. First the camps, then the debate on when he learnt, by his own admission of the dimensions of the murder of Jews, and finally on the Nuremberg trials evidence.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I also think that the first Achcar quote after Schwanitz here should directly cite the originals, and not confuse his judgement with the records of what Himmler and Husseini said. Evidence first, in chronological order, and then commentary.Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Mufti's Knowledge of Holocaust

Zero0000 has undid my edit about the Mufti's knowledge of the Holocaust, and apparently inserted his own Original Research by inserting some very controversial wording that is unsupported by any source or reference. His sentence is: "Although some historians have questioned al-Husseini's knowledge of the Holocaust while it was in progress" There are many sources -- including sources that Zero has accepted in the past -- that document that the Mufti had full knowledge of Nazi genocide against the Jews. I am not aware of any reputable historian who has "questioned al-Husseini's knowledge of the Holocaust" Pluto's claim that there are "some historians" who "have questioned" the Mufti's awareness of this Genocide must be backed up by at least two historians who have published such doubts. If there are such references, please add these sources as footnotes to this claim. If there are no such reliable sources, then I propose that this phrasing is, at best, misleading and should be changed. If there are no such references, I may re-insert the 'unquestioned evidence' wording in this passage I'll make sure it is backed-up by multiple references.Ronreisman (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If you look at Schwanitz's article, in either the English or German original, names are cited for challenging that view, so that was not OR but correct paraphrase from the immediate source. Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

<blowckquote>Though there is scholarly consensus that Husseini became a staunch antisemite, there are some historians who question when his anti-Jewish bias was formed.

That has ignored the argument and evidence on this talk page. This is a very entangled and for some a highly emotional issue, and we don't do emotions here. Laurens doesn't 'question when his anti-Jewish bias was formed. Where is your source saying that 'scholarly consensus' holds he because a 'staunch antisemite'?

Laurens for one glosses Husseini's encounter with Hitler by noting that after hearing Hitler's tirade, he responded that Zionism was one thing, the Jews the other. You insist on inserting 'anti-Jewish'. Even his rhetoric played to German ears, his paymasters and potential allies, and he concludes even after reviewing the evidence that:'a racial vision of the history of the world is totally absent fronm his general perspective,' adding that throughout the postwar period holocaust negationism was spouted by Arab politicians of the first order, while Husseini never denied the fact. Antisemitism is intimately connected with negationism, of course. I think therefore that your edit should be reverted. Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@Nishidani, do you really challenge "here is scholarly consensus that Husseini became a staunch antisemite" ? Is this really something that you think is debatable? Is there any reputable reliable source that states he wasn't virulently anti-Jewish? Or is his lack of antisemitism a postulate of someone's OR? I thought the issue was 'when' he became antisemitic, not 'if' he was. Incidentally, if someone says, he wasn't always prejudiced against {fill in the blank with ethnic group of choice) until he got to know 'them' and they 'taught' him to hate 'them' .... well, there's a very good chance you're dealing with a classic bigot. Just saying.Ronreisman (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ronreisman : "Pluto's claim that there are "some historians" who "have questioned" the Mufti's awareness of this Genocide must (...)"

Where did I claim so ? The antisemitism of the Mufti is questionned but I don't know if the fact he was aware of the Shoah is questionned or not or I forgot where I would have read these doubts. More, I am not an expert of the Mufti. I have focused "only" on the '48 war. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@Pluto2012 : Please cite your sources for your contention that " The antisemitism of the Mufti is questioned". I do not believe there is even a single source that takes that position. Maybe at the Institute for Historical Revisionism, right next to the articles on the 'fake' gas chambers. :-). Seriously, every single reference in this section has characterized the Mufti as an antisemite. A few have speculated The antisemitism of the Mufti is questionned on how and when his antisemitism developed, though none has expressed any doubt that he became an antisemite who (for instance) encouraged Muslim soldiers to kill Jews wherever they were found. He didn't say: 'kill only the political Zionists in Palestine' ; he advocated killing Jews everywhere, and he was glad they suffered so much during WWII (see Mufti quotes in article that make this clear). Achcar -- an outspoken anti-Zionist with impeccable pro-Palestinian activist credentials -- is outspoken in his criticism of people who try to deny the Mufti's faults. Let's not waste our time with such inconsequential conflicts. There are more important and intellectually difficult matters that we could discuss that will greatly improve the article.Ronreisman (talk) 06:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You didn't even read the exchanges here above. You would have the answer to your questions. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to reflect the diversity of opinion on this subject with the following: Though there is scholarly consensus that Husseini became a staunch antisemite, there are some historians who question when his anti-Jewish bias was formed. Henry Laurens argues that in the interwar period he became progressively persuaded that Zionism was secretly supported by world-wide Jewish powers. Ronreisman (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you notice that we were discussing this issue in the section here above based on scholars's point of view ? I think I referred to at least 9. None of them talk about "anti-Jewish bias". I am quite sure that one of them, Tom Segev, even argues anti-Jewish "attitude" was fully understandable given the behaviour of the Jewish Agency in Palestine.

Now, could you answer my question here above ? Pluto2012 (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No one ever writes 'scholarly consensus' in wiki without passing a challenge to provide a secondary or tertiary source on the argument indicating there is, in precisely those terms. Secondly 'anti-Jewish bias' is stupid for an antisemite. You have taken a nuanced statement and destabilized it. We've been working collectively on this for 7 years, and most of the article has been endlessly parsed for balance through close attention to sources and language. No one here wants to get the haj off the rap: the facts speak far more strongly than edits that push emphasis to vindicate a POV. It was a poor edit because it generates endless questions and challenges on wording, sources etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Zero inserted these words:"Although some historians have questioned al-Husseini's knowledge of the Holocaust while it was in progress...", without support. Why should it stay in the article? Ykantor (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I assume that Zero0000 has reacted to these words : "There is overwhelming and unquestionable evidence that during WWII Al-Husseini had knowledge of the German genocide against the Jews, and that he supported their anti-Jewish program." and tried to neutralize them.

In the (short) research that I made this evening, I haven't found any other evidence but the short excerpt from his memories reporting the '43 meeting (quite "overwhelming") and I found other excerpts that would tend to say the contrary (quite "unquestionable").

At the lecture of this material, I think both wordings should be removed as it was before Ronreisman and Ykantor arrived on wikipedia.

Pluto2012 (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The Child's writing reads (misspelled) Hitler was evil!. The contributor is upset whereas the child's speech reads: "But it's true! What are you, a Nazi?" (written in SMS language).

All I was doing was reporting the Schwanitz source accurately. He starts by mentioning some historians who doubt it, then he says they are wrong and cites the memoir. That is what the source contains so it should be what our report of the source contains too. In any case, words like "overwhelming and unquestionable" are soapboxing that doesn't belong here. Zero^talk 22:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

(Although it is not needed to verify the sentence I made, I wonder if people who consider one sentence in a memoir published much later to be unquestionably true would also consider every other sentence in the same memoir to be unquestionably true.) Zero^talk 23:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

According to wp:undue the " some historians who doubt it" should be mentioned as less important views. Perhaps saying that Schwanitz rejects some historians who doubt it. Ykantor (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That is not English. I agree with Pluto that attempts to kick a dead horse, and overegg the pud have muddled what was a clear RS-based, and simple statement of the facts and views. There information required for readers to make there own judgements is on the page (I personally don't think I am obliged to trust what Husseini says -I retain what is said as documentary POVs and do not 'believe' anything-: I also think I am not obliged to draw conclusions about the depth his knowledge of the 'holocaust/shoah' - words he probably did no know) and efforts to ram how a triumphant generalization amount to little more than editorial abuses. We should go back to the prior wording.Nishidani (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Nish, Zero : the sentence that is currently in the article (which y'all support) is very bad English, so bad that it is actually misleading. Zero is correct that Schw. intent is to show that the Mufti was aware of the genocide against the Jews, and the so-called historians who doubt this are easily proven wrong. Eg by the Mufti's own memoirs. The plain English meaning of the sentence should be to emphasize that the reliable sources cast doubt on 'historians' who claim there is reason to think the Mufti was innocent of this charge. The current sentence gives exactly the opposite impression. It implies that there are a number of reputable historians who seriously doubt the veracity of the Mufti's reports of his meetings with Himmler. That is a very false impression. As Achcar notes, it is a shameful game to try to cover up these facts. Lets not do it. If you have any references that support this statement, eg reliable sources that doubt the Mufti's knowledge of Nazi genocide against Jews, then please support this questionable sentence with footnotes. It would be better, Zero. If you would simply re-word the sentence so that it reflects the meaning that Schw. originally intended.:Ronreisman (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ron. Anytime I hear suggestions I am 'covering up the facts' on wikipedia, I tend not to wish to waste time replying. It's deeply offensive.Nishidani (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Nish, please accept my apology for anything I may have written that may have offended you in Amy way. I have no intention if insulting or embarrassing anyone. We are all on a good faith effort to improve wikipedia in general and this article in particular. One measure of my respect for you is to continue to discuss these issues on this talk page, and another measure of respect is the fact that I'm not 'undo'-Ing or edit warring this misleading and literally untrue sentence. Instead I'm giving you every opportunity to justify and explain your reasoning. So let's refocus on the issue: you are claiming that scholarship is divided on whether the Mufti was an antisemite. This statemeint has no dicumentary support, however, since there are many historians who conclude -- with goof evidence -- that the Mufti was certainly antisemitism in his maturity (eg his antisemitism activities while collaborating with the Nazis), and apparently none who state that he was not an antisemite. So the question is again put to you: do you know of reliable sources who conclude that Haj Amin al Husseini was not an antisemite (or, as some say, a Jew-hater)? If so, please provide the citation. If there are no such citations, then we are duty-bound to revise this sentence so tha it reflects the facts and the overwhelming consensus of scholarship. So, again: Would you cite some source that support your hypothesis?Ronreisman (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you are reading the exchanges, or grasp what editing wiki requires. Zero paraphrased Schwanitz, and you objected. I didn't say scholarship is divided on whether or not Husseini was an antisemite. I said, and gave evidence, that, historically, scholarship has been divided on whether Husseini became an antisemite at a certain stage, or was one from the outset. The Zionist historiographical tradition thought the latter closer to the truth, several important scholars embrace the former (as listed above) perspective. Laurens himself has reservations about using Western concepts like 'antisemitism' for Islam (which had anti-Judaic elements of course). Antisemitism is nailed into the doctrinal heart of Western tradition: Jews in Islam are one of the 'peoples of the book', and to rewrite the history of a different civilization using eurocentric clichés is rampant, but attentive scholars shy from such facile spin. There is no doubt his WW2 remarks are classic examples of antisemitic rhetoric, and justify him being called an antisemite at that stage. Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

How come that there is still a doubt, that a person who called to "Kill the Jews wherever you find them", is one of the worst Antisemitic guys? Ykantor (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Antisemitism as a concept is a very precise, or was once, analytic category to define a world-view. General Patton told on his troops in a famous speech in 1944:

'We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours.' Tim Ripley,Patton Unleashed: Pattons Third Army and the Breakout from Normandy,Zenith Imprint, 2003 p.18p.

After the war he was given the governorship of Bavaria, and never acted on the inflammatory rhetoric of those infamous speeches written to 'whip up the boys'. Quotes like this were endemic on all sides during the war, and the Germans certainly acted on what they had written or declared. It's the same with the 1948 war inflammatory speeches you and the literature like to cite. Historians try to sift the evidence to make the necessary judgements with this understanding in view. This is not in justification of the mufti, of course. Statements like that brand him with the inexpungible name of antisemite. Laurens says that, on arriving in Berlin to meet Hitler, he was far from being an antisemite, since nothing in his prior record attests to it. He became an antisemite, certainly in his language adapted from his hosts.

What is at issue here is narrative precision for this period in his life. As I originally pointed out, saying Husseini was an antisemite simplifies his history by an error of ontological branding. I just happened today to listen to a radio programme on Csanad Szegedi, the former raving jerk of Hungarian antisemitic nationalism, who found out he was Jewish and now has to come to terms with that. He was virulently, proudly, unabashedly antisemitic, and, obviously, now he's wised up to the fact he himself is of Jewish Holocaust-survivor descent, he has returned thank **** to his senses, and reality, and has become an observant Jew. There will be plenty of sources that record him as an antisemite, and they are correct. The truth now is that he was an antisemite for a good part of his young life.Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I have little doubt that al-Husseini was an antisemite by the 1940s, but frankly I find the question boring and childish. What matters to history is what he did and what he tried to do, not what flavor of poison he held in his heart. The worst thing he did was to remain in the Nazi pocket even after he found out about the mass extermination program. At that point the "enemy of my enemy" excuse evaporated and he is rightly condemned for it. For earlier periods, there is nothing except claims by his Zionist enemies. Just as good a case can be made for the racism of Zionist leaders, such as "the Arabs don't understand such treatment without the whip" Weizmann (I bet none of you even heard that before). Incidentally, he didn't say "kill the Jews wherever.." he said "Jews and Anglo-Saxons" (according the BBC's verbatim transcript). Zero^talk 09:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.Nishidani (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone is 'born' a bigot. In some sense bigotry is always learned (though there's fascinating research on the biological predispositions and utility of xenophobia and prejudice). According to the record, however, Haj Amin was deeply motivated by anti-Jewish bias from at least 1920, and I think it would be very difficult to make a case that he only became antisemitic when he arrived in Germany. You would certainly have a hard time convincing (for example) Achcar of this. Using your logic, one could argue that some of the Zionist Settlers aren't really bigots when they vent their spleen against Arabs. Well, I've met them, and even though I find many very likable as people, I'm also of the opinion that some of these same people are anti-Arab bigots, and trust me I'm not as polite with them as I am on a Wikipedia talk page. Bottom line: it's not as important *when* someone becomes a bigot. What's important is if their bigotry affects their moral and ethical behavior. Ronreisman (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are wrong about Achcar here. He makes a strong distinction between the antisemitism evident in his broadcasts from Germany and the anti-Zionism of his Arab nationalism. Actually I'm not sure it is even meaningful to write about his "anti-Jewish bias" in 1920. As a Palestinian leader he was in political opposition to a group of people who claimed to represent all the Jews in the world (just as Israel does today). Achcar makes this point too, see page 94 or 101 depending on what edition you have. Zero^talk 15:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

to Zero: I appreciate your "The worst thing he did was to remain in the Nazi pocket even after he found out about the mass extermination program". From a practical point of view, Other Nazi allies (e.g. Horthy, who was a mild anti-Semite by his own admission) realized during the war last 2 years that Germany can not win the war, and started looking for contacts with the Allied powers.

What is the source of yours:""the Arabs don't understand such treatment without the whip" Weizmann ?. I hope it is not true, since I admire Weizmann, who was a great man, liberal, clever with a lot of personal charm and with no prejudices. Ykantor (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It is in a private letter he wrote in 1918, published in an authorised compilation of his correspondence. The fact that it is essentially unknown illustrates how incompetent Arab propagandists are compared to their Zionist counterparts. If a prominent Palestinian had said that about Jews there would be a thousand Google-hits. I have more like that, with impeccable sources, and you should wonder why I am not busy adding it to Chaim Weizmann. Zero^talk 09:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

'I have more like that'..So do I, bucket-loads, thematically ordered, which I don't add, as I once remarked on these pages because, once you add stuff like that on the net, it gets copied and feeds into the antisemitic meme cycle. Knowing it privately however does give one a sense of proportion in assessing POV-pushing that assumes we live in a black and white world.Nishidani (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I do not know what to say. On one hand, Wikipedia should stick with the truth, but on the other hand I really admire him. I can not grasp it. In order to say such a sentence, he must have been a racist and an idiot, because it is not true even for a dog.

You overestimate the Zionist propaganda. Jews were the underdog before the establishment of Israel, so the Zionist propaganda was more effective. Nowadays, the Palestinians are the underdog, and the Palestinian propaganda is justifiably winning. Ykantor (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure. They're so successful in their propaganda battle that 10,000 of their olive trees, the basic life staple, were uprooted by settlers from January to November this year, and as a response to their pleas to join the International Olive Council], of which Israel is a long-standing member, in order to obtain technical assistance, Germany and Britain overruled their request as an impediment to 'peace' talks, just after Tony Abbott outHeroded the Herodian US by announcing a radical shift in Australia's foreign policy towards active support for settlements, joining Canada's Steve Harper and Egypt's new military re-isolation of Gaza, which is drowning in sewage. Cheer up. If that is the effect of successful Palestinian propaganda, you should actively encourage it. Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to cheer up, when ordinary people are suffering, and it does not matter whether they are Palestinians, Israeli or Mexicans.

I still guess that the Palestinians propaganda is wining nowadays. Your examples concerning governments (rather than people), who navigate according to their interests and not values. e.g. the Armenian genocide. Government (including Israel) are afraid of the Turkish reaction, and do not side with the Armenians.

Concerning Weizmann racist writing, if my opinion count, it should be exposed and added to the Wiki relevant articles. Ykantor (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@Nishidani : This whole thread is seriously off-topic. But since we're in these particular weeds, here's my $0.02: Anyone who thinks the Jewish people are 'cheered' by the suffering of Palestinians is, IMHO, seriously out of touch with reality. Do you really believe that a people who have been oppressed for centuries, who have suffered the Holocaust, and who are still threatened to be 'driven into the Sea' because of their ethnicity .... do you *really* believe they are tone-deaf to the suffering of innocents who are victimized by the facts of their own ethnicity? Really? Or is it more logical, perhaps, to consider that they may be afraid of a second Holocaust, since so many of their surrounding neighbors seem to delight in describing how they'll wipe out the Jews, and maybe the Israelis just don't want to be wiped-out? In any case, I completely agree with Ykantor that even if there are facts that could be distorted by antisemites (see comments by Zero0000 above), that's no reason to suppress these facts. We can't suppress history just because we're afraid that a bigot will distort it. We need to have the courage of our convictions. We need to confront and assimilate even the most disturbing history, regardless the dangers of biased distortion. If it's true that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it, then it's even more true that we must not ignore uncomfortable or inconvenient history, since we can't learn from history if historical facts are censored. So I echo Ykantor's admonition to @Zero0000: please add the info you have to Weizmann article, and let the chips fall where they may. It's the only way to give the readers the tools they need to think clearly about these complex issues. You have our full support.Ronreisman (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I really wish you were correct that oppressed people are more likely to empathise with the misfortunes of others. Some people, bless them, do react that way, but neither history nor psychology provide any evidence for this as a general trend. Actually, alas, the opposite seems to be the case. The response "nothing we did to them was as bad as was done to us" is more common. Regarding Weizmann, I'm not going to publish his "whip" letter on Wikipedia. It isn't my style to dig up dirt from someone's private correspondence. More significant to history is a letter he wrote to Balfour protesting that the British in Palestine tried to treat Arabs and Jews fairly instead of recognising (as the Turks had done, according to him) that Jews are fundamentally superior. I might get around to citing that in an appropriate place. Zero^talk 06:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Zero. Apropos that letter, it has a curious echo in Koestler (P&F p.33)Nishidani (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Zero0000 : FYI: During my last visit to Israel & Palesting (earlier this year) I listened to a range of empathetic statements by many Israelis regarding the Palestinians. I didn't hear a single Israeli state that they wished Israel didn't exist, nor did I hear any of them refer to 1948 as a 'Nakba' nor express any doubts about the legitimacy of the Jewish State. At the same time, almost every Jew who spoke about the Conflict with me made some statement about how the situation could be made better for the Palestinian people. Even some of the most militant anti-Arab settlers who saw the Conflict as an explicit 'Holy War' (their words, not mine) were advocating that the Arabs in the 'Territories' be given every educational, health-care, and social-service advantage enjoyed by any Jewish Israeli citizen. These same anti-Arab Jewish settlers also advocated that the Arabs be denied the essential civil right of *voting* -- and then they noted that such a plan would never be approved by the Jews inside the 'Green Line' in Israel, due to their 'Western values' (which the settlers felt was mistaken). We spent the Passover Sedar at my cousin's house. His daughter was serving her stint in the IDF. She contributed a series of Left-wing 'prayers' and songs that focused on the violated rights of the Palestinian Arabs. I was particularly moved by the IDF-version of the traditional 'It would have been enough!' song; in the IDF-version, the refrain is 'It is not enough!' with lyrics that make clear it will not be 'enough' until there is justice for Palestinians as well as Jews. Apparently in Israel, the IDF is the hotbed of pro-Palestinian, pro-Peace politics, and the civilians tend to be more hawkish. If you think, for a second, that Israelis don't have any sympathy for Palestinians, then you simply don't have a grasp of the reality. Just because they won't surrender their nation doesn't mean that the complexities of history are ignored. If you don't believe me, visit the place, get into some political arguments (it's not hard; there are a lot of Jews there, y'know, and Jews tend to like a good political discussion, particularly during a good meal :-). Ronreisman (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This campaign from Ronreisman and Ykantor over swastica-branding certain Palestinian military leaders is getting boring. Look at Subhas Chandra Bose, do you see a swastica there? Or look at the history of the Baltic states, where, in the choice between Stalin and Hitler, "good nationalist" mostly chose Hitler. (A choice, btw, many still defend today.) But nobody goes around on Wikipedia with the sole purpose of branding "pro-national" Baltic, or Indian, leaders/movement as Nazi-affiliated. Why? Because nobody today denies the Baltic states and India their right to independence. (It is for the same reason articles like Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world is created... while Relations between Nazi Germany and the Baltic States and Relations between Nazi Germany and India will remain red-linked in all foreseeable future). It is all rather transparent. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC) UTC)

@Huldra : I'm sorry that you find these edits irksome; nonetheless, they are appropriate and useful, and should certainly be retained in this article. If a historical figure was allied with a world power, then that alliance should be recognized. There is no justification for de-emphasizing historical facts because they certain interpretations of history (although, incidentally, I probably agree with you on a purely personal political basis regarding the legitimacy of Narional anti-colonial movements). The pages you've mentioned should be modified to indicate the now-unfashionable alliances. if there is ever articles about certain concentration camp Kapos, those pages should display a Nazi flag also. It's arguable that Avraham Stern's page should display a Nazi flag, since he offered to fight with them against the British, and he did fight the Brits during WWII, even without official sanction from the Axis powers. It's a mater of using our tools to communicate the important facts efficiently. Also: thank you for pointing out there are no articles about Nazi relations with India and the Baltic States, etc. There should be articles about these very interesting histories.Ronreisman (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

to Huldra: Have a look here- Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II Ykantor (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Tagging doesn't bring anything because it removes the nuance that is so important to have a real understanding of situations. "Collaborating with the Nazis" has not the same meaning in function of the different situations. There are huge differences between the collaboration of the German people isself, the Judenradt [3], Qawuqji, Francisco Franco, al-Husseini, Léon Degrelle, ... Pluto2012 (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, Ronreisman, they "should be modified" ...but they will not be, as nobody is active trying to undermine/delegitimise India or the Baltic states. Thank you for proving my point. And Ykantor: I think most who lives in countries in Western Europe which were Nazi-occupied can tell you the intense contempt for collaboratiors. Are you seriously equalling Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world with Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II?! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Huldra : My Chanukah gifts to you will include modifying the Subhas Chandra Bose article so that it displays his flags of allegiance, including the Japanese and German Nazi flags. Let's see what the reaction will be. I will also (when some of my other work-obligations are met :-) propose new articles on Relations between Nazi Germany and the Baltic States and Relations between Nazi Germany and India, and also (as my special gift to you): Relations between Nazi Germany and the Jewish world. The later should include a broader range of 'relations' than just the discriminatory and genocidal aspects. This is the place to note the Transfer Agreements, the Capos, the German soldiers of Jewish descent, etc. The basic principal is NPOV and 'let the chips fall where they may.'Ronreisman (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion ?

So we keep it as it is : [4] ? Pluto2012 (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Nazis in the lead

No, this article has too many problems. You keep undoing an edit to the lead, the phrase '. often vilified for his collaboration with the Axis powers'. Your comment indicates you think this info is already in the lead. Please point out which words in the lead communicate this information. Ronreisman (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

My question here above didn't concern the article but the section of the article about the Holocaust.

The reference to the collaboration states this : "During World War II he collaborated with both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy by making propagandistic radio broadcasts and by helping Germans recruit Muslims for the Waffen-SS. On meeting Adolf Hitler he requested backing for Arab independence and support in opposing the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish national home."

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The principal historical significance of 'Hitler's Mufti' is the propaganda opportunities he gave to Zionists, in the opinion of many historians and reputable sources. The article contains the beginnings of a historiographical discussion about a variety of pro-Zionist publications that over-emphasizes the Nazi/Fascist--AntiZionist connection by unfairly focusing on the career of Haj Amin. This world-historical significance should be highlighted in the lead, not buried deeply in the text. His significance is not as a local leader of a small mid-east polity. Most people only know Haj Amin from the incriminating photos, eg with Hitler, Himmler. Bosnian Muslim Waffen-SS, and the rest. Many sources point out how the Hitler--Mufti photo has been used almost industrially to generate anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, and anti-Muslim propaganda. It's been fashionable to quote Novak on the disproportionate attention that's paid to the Mufti's fascist alliances, often overshadowing the fascists themselves in the minds of Zionists. Achcar's analysis is a better read on this subject, IMHO, much more erudite and informative. The point is that this is the 'lead' fact about Haj Amin, and that's why this fact needs to be mentioned in the lead. It's understandable that some -- such as Haj Amin's family, including the current Grand Mufti of Jerusalem -- would take offense if the lead only reflected his controversial collaboration. That's why I'm suggesting using the phrasing: '... often vilified for his collaboration with the Axis powers.' This phrasing emphasizes the 'vilification' of Haj Amin, and only mentions the collaboration as pretext for that vilification. I do not think the Waqf would object to that wording. Ronreisman (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean that a sentence could be added after what is currently in the lead about his collaboration with the Nazi and fascist Italy ? And that this sentence would state something such as : "His collaboration with the Nazis was widely denounced [vilipended] by its opponents and has discredited the Mufti and the cause of the Palestinian nationalism." ?

I see no objection with this but not at the beginning of the lead but rather at the place when it is talked about the collaboration. The reason is that I think wikipedia is not here to echo what the "popular culture" thinks or has learned but on the contrary what academic scholars say. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The point you wish to make, Ron, is already in the lead: in the mention of his collaboration with Nazis and Fascists and the final line:

Husseini was and remains a highly controversial figure. Historians dispute whether his fierce opposition to Zionism was grounded in nationalism or antisemitism or a combination of both.

Leads synthesize. We can see the details in the relevant sections.Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

(I had forgot this. Thank you Nish.) Pluto2012 (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Pluto2012 , @Nishidani :The most historically significant aspects of a biography should be presented in the lead sentence. The current lead sentence is: "Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini .... was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim leader in Mandatory Palestine." This does not capture the two most important facts of this Grand Mufti's biography, ie he was 1) 'prominent in the 1948 Palestine War' and 2) 'vilified for his association with the Axis powers.' These points are made a couple of paragraphs after this lead sentence. The German connections are mentioned surrounded by a host of other less-significant biographical facts surround these more-significant facts, with oblique phrasing that does adequately indicate the fierce vilification of Haj Amin Husseini by pro-Zionists. The above two phrases (14 words total) would improve the article by communicating these two significant aspects of this man's biography to the readers.Ronreisman (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead typically begin with a thumbnail generic description which is then rounded off in a few paras by a chronologically and thematically ordered account of the outlines of the subject's life. This is what has been done. What you are objecting to is this format. I've told you, and our friend ykantor, to look at comparable pages. What you are advising here is not present in pages dealing with far more historically dangerous people than this particular (post 1935) blithering incompetent. You want to give his statements emphatic spin, and, if anything, leads, and encyclopedic articles in general, don't do that. It's what polemicists, political spin-meisters, hack historians, and internet pasticheurs indulge in. There's an Etna-scale eruptive smoke clouding accounts of Husayni - perhaps a smoking gun for Husayni's putative plan to set up Auschwitzes from Hebron to Haifa will emerge, but until that stuff is published, we stick to straight facts, and let the reader read as she may.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Achcar

In this edit, Chicago Style (without pants), a sockpuppet of topic banned and blocked editor Lutrinae, made an update to a quote, removing part of it and moving the citation. The edit summary said "It is a block quote. Also, there is no need for the soapboxing parenthesis." Setting aside the sockpuppetry for a moment, there are a number of problems. The citation is [241] Achcar|2010 (b)|pp=158 i.e. Achcar, Gilbert (2010 (b)). The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives. Chastleton Travel. ISBN 978-1-429-93820-4. Page 158 of that book is visible (to me) here. It does not contain that quote. How then did the editor verify that "It is a block quote" and that is "no need for the soapboxing parenthesis" ? They didn't. The quote comes from a Libération interview with Achar available here.

• Il faut noter au passage que les mémoires d’Amin al-Husseini sont un antidote contre le négationnisme : il savait que le génocide avait lieu et se vantait d’avoir été parfaitement au courant dès 1943. Pour moi, il est un artisan de la nakba (la défaite de 1948 et le départ de centaines de milliers de Palestiniens chassés de leurs terres), au sens où il porte une responsabilité dans ce qui est arrivé au peuple palestinien.

As you can see, it includes "the soapboxing parenthesis" in his response. So, what we have here is a sockpuppet of a topic banned/blocked user editing content without verifying it, based on their own unsubstantiated and invalid assumptions. This is why we have topic bans and why topic banned editors should not be editing content. Another typical day in ARBPIA. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I just checked and noted a severe administrative warning on his page one month ago. I've always regarded him as a sock, but can't prove it. His patently provocatively partisan edits are just part of the daily noise and nuisance here and one gets tired of endless arbcom haggling. I think though that his behaviour here and on the Palestinian page warrants a permaban. I'd make the complaint myself, only that I don't know how to. Anyone? His presence here is totally pointless. Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That edit is a good example of how he messes things. I put in the book reference to 'architect of the nakba' in its proper place, right after the phrase. He then placed it at the end of the citation, creating a false source. It's an obvious fudge to make trouble for source-based editors who, if they have to follow this kind of manipulation everywhere, waste valuable time.Nishidani (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Pluto. 'se vantait d'avoir' is translated 'boasted'. This is a ticklish thing. The reference is clearly to Husseini's statement in his memoires (Damascus 1999) where he registered his surprise on hearing from Himmler that 3 million Jews had been liquidated. Achcar is a scrupulous historian, and I don't think the evidence we have indicates Husseini 'boasted' or bragged about this. 'se vanter' in French also means 'take pride in', and I think this is how Achcar's statement should be taken in context, given Husseini's own words. I read the passage thus:'se vantait d’avoir été parfaitement au courant dès 1943/he took pride in having been thoroughly informed (of the SHOAH) since 1943'. What do you, or any other francophone think?Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

In French, if somebody "se vante [de savoir quelque chose]", it means he "takes pride [to know something]". This implicitly means this has to be done in front of several people and/or several times or that he emphasizes this fact strongly.

I agree with you that the evidence that we have found and written on wikipedia doesn't comply with this idea and I would say it is an interpretation.

Anyway, given Husseini states that he "has known about the holocaust since 1943" without any shame, any comment or regret and given he "participation/collaboration" with Nazi Germany, it can be perceived by a reader as a form of arrogance, which is not far from prideness. It depends much on the picture we can have of the personnage and the context in which we place his speech. Achcar makes no compromise with the Mufti.

Maybe also that Achcar bases his comments on the interpretation of Elpeleg who states that Husseini was "delighted" by what was happeneing to Jews and even took "pleasure" of the Final Solution ! I don't know for Achcar but I am sure that Elpeled read a lot of primary material about the Mufti. He even published a book gathering this (book that I didn't read.)

Pluto2012 (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, at the least, it becomes ambiguous for a translator, which is often the case. The imperfect tense has a frequentative valency, of course ('used to'). My only problem is that, if evidence, in Elpeleg or elsewhere of him repeating what he said in his diary is available, they should produce it. There must be, as Schwanitz promised somewhere, much more material to be rendered public and translated, but, as far as I know, we don't have any evidence so far that he repeatedly 'prided himself on', or 'boasted' of having been informed of the Holocaust before it became public knowledge. I think Husseini became a strong antisemite. I also think that the record shows that his (murderous) antipathies were rather strongly focused against his brethren and compatriots, fellow Arabs, and that is, in terms of the classic antisemite, rather curious. I won't alter the translation of course to 'prided himself on', though I think it might fit better: evidence clarifying this might emerge in a few years, and one should wait for that.Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Earlier this year I began corresponding with Dr. Achcar. He kindly and generously took time to review a Wikipedia article ( Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world ) and pointed out some issues (eg the number of Jews killed during the 1941 Farhud in Iraq), which I then attempted to correct with follow-up edits. I've found Dr. Achcar to be very amiable. What do the other editors think about inviting him to participate in fixing up some of the issues in this article. I believe we all have a consensus about the overall quality of Dr. Achcar's work, and he has a rare status as a militantly anti-Zionist activist who (largely as result of the English edition of his 'The Arabs and the Holocaust') is also highly respected within Israel. Perhaps he could add a little 'adult supervision' to these discussions, and help us avoid the boring and boorish edit wars, nullifications, etc. So, what do we all think about inviting Dr. Achcar to join us? Ronreisman (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think descriptions like 'militantly anti-Zionist activist' are helpful. I don't see any problem in him participating. Several of us are scholars, and adults, however, and outside 'supervision' is not how the system, or wiki cistern, works. Any direction to reliable sources, particularly in Arabic, which we may have overlooked or missed, would be particularly valued. You should notify him however that most scholars quickly and understandably exhaust their generous patience in the face of the nonsense of talk-page chat which wiki imposes on us to obtain consensus. Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Prof Achcar is of course welcome.

The Massadah complex from which suffer most Israelis and the way some of them partition the world into two groups (the anti-Zionists and the pro-Israelis) make me think that one day you will be forbidden to edit these articles as a whole like members of the Scientology Church are forbidden to do so today.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think 'most Israelis' have a 'Masada complex'. Most writers in newspapers there may use that to explain everything or anything, but we should never confuse the rhetoric and slogans of newsprint and reportage with the various casts of mind of any population. 'Most Israelis' do not edit wikipedia: unfortunately, the majority who do appear to evince a seige mentality. We should not confuse the two. In any case, good editing is simple. (a) use only academic sources by specialists (with reliable newspaper reportage limited mostly to contemporary issues) and (b) evaluate them for due weight, and the place in the scholarly spectrum of their views, as far as that can be ascertained. This is what encyclopedic writing is about.Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

These are fine words, Nish, and I heartily agree. It appears difficult, however, to reconcile your recent edit (Revision as of 17:51, 6 December 2013) with these same principles which you correctly summarize above. Why did you take a single quote from a Achcar's book -- an authorized English translation that meets the 'academic source by a specialist' standard that gives it high value, and then break it up, replacing the last half of the book's quote with an unofficial Enlish translation (your own? isn't that OR?) from the French newspaper Liberacion (thankyou for providing the original French text in the footnote). So, using your own logic (above) shouldn't the book's quote have been left to stand on it's own? Why are two different quotes from two entirely different publications (one a book, the other a newspaper) synthesized into a single Wkipedia blockquote in this article? The Liberacion newpaper reportage did not cover a 'contemporary issue' -- it was just another quote about material that was already completely covered in the original quote from the book. So, why should this blockquote have the book's words deleted and the newpaper article wording appended in such a manner? Don't you think the article may be improved if we just use the single quote from the book?Ronreisman (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I fail to follow what you are saying. A disrupter fucked up the sourcing for a quote. This was noted by Sean.hoyland, and I fixed the mess. The note to his book mid-para takes the reader to his long discussion on Husayni as 'the architect of the nakba', while the end note shows where the whole paragraph is translated from, i.e., the Libération article.

I really don't think Dr. Achcar would take any offense to being characterized as 'Anti-Zionist' and believe that he would rather proudly defend that position, just as he would probably agree that he is a 'Progressive' etc. He has spent a good deal of his career actively involved in progressive anti-Zionist politics, and he has rightfully earned a fine reputation i that area. In an Israeli bookstore he was described as a Lebanese/English Noam Chomsky -- only less antisemitic :-) In any case, we can ask him about his feelings about the the anti-Z. epithet if he choses to join us in the talk page. Ronreisman (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'less antisemitic'. You are either antisemitic or not, racist or not. Neither Achcar nor Chomsky are antisemitic, and Chomsky (I grew up with his writings) was for a long time not even anti-Zionist. There's nothing special about 'Zionism': it's just a form of ethnic nationalism, which means in a contested area, "we" are more valid and valuable than "them". People who were raised in the Enlightenment tradition reject it, as they reject any other form of ethnic self-priorization. Chomsky is actually deeply patriotic, as an American, and as a Jew interested in the preservation of Israel: it's just that his patriotism is secular-democratic and individualist. Any familiarity with his writings will show this to be obvious.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nish, although this clearly off the topic of the article, it's clearly worth a response. I can't express how strongly I disagree with the notion that bigotry and xenophobia are bits that turned on or off. The phenomena are much, much more complex and nuanced. It is valuable, I propose, to discuss these nuances, and to recognize and explore the complexities of bias. Regarding Achcar v. Chomsky -- the discussion was in connection of 'Perilous Power' a book they co-authored, though it was certainly a comment about Chomsky in general. I didn't make the comment, though I laughed with everyone else at the joke. I have not desire to gossip or speak evil of Dr. Chomsky. I wish him health and long life. Nevertheless, I must be honest: When I read Achcar I'm reminded of Voltaire. When I read Chomsky, I'm reminded of Pfefferkorn. Ronreisman (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

If you make that analogy, Ron, you're admitting you've read little of either (Achcar and Voltaire/Chomnsky and Pfefferkorn).Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Nish: I'm just being honest and telling you the emotional feelings I have when reading these authors. Achcar's *does* remind me of reading Voltaire, sharing crusading spirit for progressive ideals and justice, a wicked wit and piercing attacks on people, institutions, and ideologies, and antipathy to those who dress in black (eg clergy, priests, ultra-orthodox jews, etc.). Also: both Achcar and Voltaire, IMHO, don't 'get' the Jews (that's just my opinion, of course). I admit I haven't read much Pfefferkorn. Nevertheless, I've found myself thinking of Pfefferkorn numerous times when reading Chomsky over the years. It's an emotional feeling, more about the what Pfefferkorn represents than a line-by-line comparison. I'm sorry if this offend in any way. Just telling you honestly what I experience. Your milage may vary. 67.180.238.75 (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Ronreisman (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)]

Full disclosure: My grandfather and Noam Chomsky's father were friends. Ronreisman (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Although this particular thread is certainly off this article's topic, it's also been surprisingly enlightening. For instance, I think that some of us really don't appreciate what Haj Amin represents to millions of Israelis and other Jews. Novick's analysis is too superficial to be useful. Achcar's essays are much more informative and sophisticated. Nevertheless, neither of them really capture the complexities, perhaps because they tend to dismiss the Mufti's historical influence, both on = anti-Israel activists and on Israelis themselves. Ronreisman (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It's of no interest to the page what the mufti represents to anybody. It's what scrupulous historical investigations tells us (and most of us, even Jews and Israelis, would know little more than the name and a few slogans) that enters the page. The public view of things is what Nietzsche said of public opinion - something people who have no personal opinions share, i.e. what people who haven't taken the trouble to master a subject are influenced to believe they 'think' as a result of what Walter Lippman, not Noam Chomsky, called the manufacture of consent. Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)