Talk:Alleged Palestinian genocide of Israelis

Mixing genocide claims

The immediate problem that I see here with this page is the introduction of the various claims about Amin al-Husseini, which are largely related to the Holocaust. All of this material is covered expansively elsewhere, not least on the Amin al-Husseini, but more pertinently, it is not about "Israelis", but European Jews. These are matters that long predate 1948 and the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a topic of examination. All Holocaust-related content is off-topic and out-of-scope here and should be removed. Better to have a stub than to draw in off-topic content just to fill space. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I've quoted Raz-Krakotzkin's argument that an increasing number of Israelis (most notably Netanyahu) present the 1947-1948 war as a continuation of the Holocaust. And Dershowitz's blog post makes essentially the same argument that Raz-Krakotzkin claims Netanyahu and others are making. When the claim is being made that Palestinian actions in the 1947-1948 war are continuous with the Holocaust, I don't see how it can be that "All Holocaust-related content is off-topic and out-of-scope". And for the record, I'm not agreeing with or endorsing claims that the Palestinian cause is a continuation of the Holocaust, just documenting the fact that the claim has been made. My personal opinions don't really matter, but personally I think that claiming that Palestinians are or were continuing the Holocaust is utterly over-the-top and silly rhetoric–still, it remains the case that a number of pro-Israel sources do claim that, or at least have been argued by a scholarly work as claiming that, and we should document the fact that they do. So I don't see how the claim that Palestinians in 1947-1948 were continuing (or at least attempting to continue) the Holocaust is out of scope for an article on Israeli claims of Palestinian genocide. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand the logic, but you can't have this content under the banner of "Israelis", which were not a thing until 1948. Such content might have a place somewhere, but not here under this title. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

In other words, you are arguing the title should be different. What if we moved it to Alleged Palestinian genocide of Jews and Israelis? (Probably not allowed now it been AFDed, but can always be proposed as part of the AFD process.) Furthermore, we need to remember that from the Israeli perspective, Jews in Palestine in 1947 and Jewish Israelis in 1948 are basically one and the same thing. Additionally, the claims of Dershowitz, Spoerl, and those which Raz-Krakotzkin attributes to Netanyahu, are not just that Palestinians were committing genocide in 1947, but also that they were committing it in 1948, indeed that 1947 and 1948 were one and the same genocide. Indeed, the 1947 and 1948 wars were really one and the same war (just expanding from a civil war to an international war); if the 1948 war was genocidal, the target of the genocide was Jewish Israelis, and the target of the 1947 genocide was the same population under a different label. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

When you say we should contrive to frame the subject from the perspective of a single narrow group of people, it does not sit at all well with WP:NPOV. We don't need narrow perspectives, we need broad perspectives on the subject, and we should definitely only conflate topics if a broad selection of sources conflate the topics, not a narrow selection. Overall, the conflation of early 20th century, mid-20th century and early 21st-century events serves little use; it may serve certain narratives, but it certainly does not serve readers. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is about allegations made by Israel and Israel supporters. Obviously the Israeli perspective is going to be paramount in structuring the contours of those allegations. I don't see how that isn't NPOV. Remember the article is never claiming these Israeli allegations are true, just documenting the fact that (some) Israelis and Israel supporters have made them. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you're getting confused here, this page shouldn't just be based on Israeli statements, just as its mirror image shouldn't be based on Palestinian statements. Both should be based, as much as possible, on far more independent reliable sources, i.e. the opposite of the likes of people affiliated with the JCPA, which is an explicitly bias advocacy organization. That is junk. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

While Raz-Krakotzkin is an Israeli source, he is rather friendly to the Palestinian cause, is writing in a book coauthored with Palestinian academics, and is describing these Israeli allegations to condemn them not to support them–so I don't think it is fair to dismiss him as "just based on Israeli statements". Furthermore, the article isn't citing the JCPA as evidence that anything that JCPA says is actually true, just as evidence that Israel supporters have made these allegations. It isn't "junk" to cite an advocacy groups work as evidence of what its own beliefs are. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I was merely paraphrasing your own statement that "The article is about allegations made by Israel and Israel supporters." On the JCPA, I'm sorry, but if the best sources around are linked to clear advocacy groups, that bodes poorly for the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The best source in that section of the article is not the JCPA source, it is Raz-Krakotzkin's chapter. The JCPA and Dershowitz sources are parallel sources to support Raz-Krakotzkin's claim. The Raz-Krakotzkin chapter is a high quality source–a book from a respected academic press which received some very positive reviews. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, but more pertinently, it is not about "Israelis", but European Jews isn't true. Both the Dershowitz blog post and the Spoerl article accuse al-Husseini (and the Palestinians more broadly) of planning/attempting/committing genocide in Israel/Palestine, both during WW2 (the planned Nazi invasion of Palestine, which never took place due to Nazi Germany's defeat in other battles) and subsequently in the 1947-1948 war. Furthermore, when Raz-Krakotzkin argues that Netanyahu and others present the Palestinian cause as the continuation of the Holocaust, the claim is of continuity between an (actual or attempted or planned) genocide of Jews in Israel/Palestine and the genocide of Jews in Europe. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This is still not about Israelis. Pre-1948, the Jews in Palestine were just the Jews in Palestine; the IDF was the Haganah. Any plots before then were directed at Jews, not Israelis. It's conflation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Any plots before then were directed at Jews, not Israelis. It's conflation Jews in Palestine in 1947 and Israelis in 1948 were the same group of people; 1948 Israelis identified themselves as the same people as 1947 Palestinian Jews, and their Arab Palestinian opponents did too. I don't see how it is "conflation"–it isn't two different things, it is one thing with a change in label in the middle. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Because a page title says "Israelis" sets the clock at 1948. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

1947 and 1948 were part of one continuous historical process. The Israeli claim is that there was a continual Palestinian-committed genocide (or genocide attempt) starting during WW2 and continuing through the 1948 war. The fact that the label for the (alleged) target group changes from "Palestinian Jews" to "Israelis" at some point in 1948 is just a change in labelling, not a change in the substance of the allegation. Furthermore, Israeli proponents of the idea of a Palestinian-committed genocide don't claim the genocide suddenly stopped in 1948, they see (alleged) contemporary Palestinian genocide of Israelis as a continuation of the (alleged) 1940s Palestinian-committed genocide. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

If you want an article about "Israeli claims", then it shouldn't start "alleged" anything, it should start with "Israeli claims", but such a thing cannot exist, because WP:NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Raz-Krakotzkin's chapter describes those Israeli claims. How is Raz-Krakotzkin's chapter not an NPOV source? What is its POV? And Dershowitz and the JCPA sources are just illustrations of what Raz-Krakotzkin is claiming. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I was referencing the title. But regardless, this isn't a productive discussion, and I am not interested in continuing it any further. Let's chalk it up to different sourcing standards and move on. I simply see nothing here that I find compelling. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't seem productive if the argument is focused on the title (which can easily be changed) not the cited sources. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The place and the time period

this (mirror) article (And I am not currently expressing a position regarding the question of whether he even has a place here). It should have started at the very least from the beginning of the British mandate, not to mention about 200 years before the time it begins now. מי-נהר (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources or go start a blog. nableezy - 16:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you speak/read Hebrew? Are there any Hebrew reliable sources on this topic? I suspect there probably are, but since I don't know Hebrew doubt I'm going to find them. Maybe you can? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Alleged Palestinian responsibility for the Holocaust

The idea that Palestinians/the mufti was responsible for the Holocaust is a preposterous idea that has never gained any traction whatsoever in the relevant field. 100% of actual Holocaust scholars would tell you that it was primarily organized by Nazi Germany and the motivations of the major perpetrators had nothing to do with Palestinians. You won't find many sources outside of op eds criticizing Netanyahu precisely because no legitimate historians take it seriously. (t · c) buidhe 20:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The article isn't presenting Netanyahu's claims as in any way true. Raz-Krakotzkin argues that blaming Palestinians for the Holocaust is an increasingly common trope among Israelis and Israeli supporters – and he presents them not as isolated to Netanyahu, merely Netanyahu as the highest profile proponent of that narrative. The quotes from Dershowitz and Spoerl – both of which predate Netanyahu's speech, and have been identified as among the sources of Netanyahu's ideas – are presented as further examples of what Raz-Krakotzkin is claiming. The point is not that "the Palestinians are to blame for the Holocaust" should be taken seriously by anyone, the point is simply to document the fact that pro-Israel sources make that claim. You are right that the vast majority of historians consider these claims to be "preposterous" – and maybe the article could state that more forcefully – but the point is that even if they are indeed preposterous, they are a narrative promoted by sufficiently powerful and influential people (an Israeli Prime Minister, a high profile Harvard law professor–and other people like Wolfgang G. Schwanitz who while not as well-known as Netanyahu or Dershowitz, are considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article) that the notability of the people promoting them makes the claims notable. A claim can be preposterous and notable simultaneously, they aren't mutually exclusive categories. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Also no legitimate historians take it seriously isn't true. Schwanitz is considered a legitimate historian, and he published an op-ed arguing that Netanyahu was fundamentally right (although even Scwhwanitz views Netanyahu as exaggerating his case somewhat). Also, Schwanitz's sympathy for Netanyahu's position is not unique among "legitimate historians"–another historian who takes a similar position is Dr. Yosef Sharvit of Bar Ilan University (source), yet another is Dr Edy Cohen, also of Bar Ilan (source) –and there are probably more. As a generalisation, the historians who would defend Netanyahu's position are generally either right-leaning Israeli historians, or non-Israeli historians with strong sympathy for the Israeli right – which is a rather small minority of all "legitimate historians", but not literally zero. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the Mufti libel is that the claim of assigning him the responsibility dates to 1946 at the earliest , and was based off testimony of two former Nazi officials in an attempt to evade judgement .

It has been roughly 8 decades since Nuremberg  ; none of those "historians" claiming Husseini's centrality ever found actual historical evidence which suggests the Final Solution was ever a foreign , external idea to the Nazis , rather than an original conception .Husseini's interest was stopping the Jewish national homeland in Palestine : this needn't be against all Jews rather than those who sought going there . The sources above are just inflammatory commentary based on speculation on loose unrelated details , which putting it in academic historical-critical terms : is an unsustainable thesis . They have a better chance proving John Kennedy was assassinated by L.B Johnson and CIA than industrial-level wide genocide being designed by someone who wasn't even nominally an Islamic cleric .

If a source cites evidence : it should be cited . otherwise : there are other places than wikipedia to list politically charged guess-work. 176.44.52.30 (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

My point here is not to defend any of Netanyahu's claims. My point is simply that they are notable, and form (as Raz-Krakotzkin argues) part of a broader pattern of trying to blame Palestinians for the Holocaust, something that goes beyond just Netanyahu himself (as Raz-Krakotzkin also argues). I'm not bringing up the fact that a small minority of historians defend Netanyahu because I think that proves Netanyahu right, I'm bringing it up as evidence which corroborates Raz-Krakotzkin's claim, as historians who are engaged in the task of blaming Palestinians for the Holocaust. Raz-Krakotkin explicitly cites Scwhwanitz as an example of this; I don't remember any mention by him of Sharvit or Cohen, but I'm sure he would agree they are also examples of the phenomenon he is talking about. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

What I said is that among historians who are respected in the field of Holocaust studies, whose primary research interest is the Holocaust, the number of supporters would be literally zero. No widely accepted history books about the Holocaust would support this theory. Schwanitz is not an expert on the Holocaust, Dershowitz is not a historian by any stretch of the imagination, and others you mention I've never heard of. Frankly the idea that the Mufti played a leading role in the Holocaust is practically as fringe as holocaust denial. It is, however, a notable idea and possibly a good solution for covering it would be to move such fringe content to its own dedicated article such as Mufti Holocaust theory and ensure to cover it according to the guideline at WP:FRINGE, which means citing mainstream sources such as this one and accurately representing the level of acceptance of the theory. (t · c) buidhe 01:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you this is not a mainstream idea, and the tiny handful of historians who endorse it are not generally recognised as experts on the Holocaust. But, part of my point is that it is just one instance of the broader narrative of "Palestinians committing genocide against Jews/Israelis". Limiting it to an article which is so specific misses that it is part of this broader narrative. And I didn't invent the idea that there is such a broader narrative – see the philosopher and genocide scholar Maxim Pensky's recent article What is genocide, and who is committing it now in the Middle East? which mentions "mutual accusations of genocide" – and while in that article he only mentions recent Israeli claims of Palestinian-committed genocide, I think he'd agree that those Israeli claims aren't new, but have been around for many years now. Similarly, a 2014 Al Jazeera article mentions Israel and the PA trading "mutual accusations of genocide and ethnic cleansing at the United Nations" SomethingForDeletion (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

This I’m sure will become a decent page. In the converse genocide page, it is stated:

The characterization has been rejected by many, but not all, Israelis.

I think we need a similar sentence in the lede of this article, however, as this claim is less well sourced and supported, it might be stated that the characterization is not regarded seriously by many. There’s assuredly a better way to put this though. Scientelensia (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)