Talk:Amin al-Husseini/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Nuremberg

[1], [2], [3], [4] . As far as I know, al-Husayni was not mentioned at Nuremburg by anyone at all. There are two sources of this story in the literature. One is a journalist Stein who claimed to have heard it from Wisliceny, and another is that Rudolph Kastner claimed to have heard it from Wisliceny. According to Philip Mattar's biography of al-Husayni, it became clear at the Eichmann trial that Wisliceny had confused al-Husayni with another Arab; I can't verify that. In any case, the independent evidence is that al-Husayni had little relationship of any sort with Eichmann and Himmler, and the first claim in this "quote" is completely ridiculous. Try to find a mainstream Holocaust historian who takes it seriously; there aren't any. --Zero 12:03, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, the transcripts are oral testimony only and not include the affidavits made out by Wisleceny and others. Testimony in a court includes both the oral and written statements. The web is a poor source for Nuremburg, the quantity of material from those trials is so large that much has not been placed on the web (yet, if ever). A number of these are referenced in Eichmann's trial. By then Wisleceny was dead...having been executed in Bratislava in 1948. Wisleceny was Eichmann's deputy. One source denying Husseini's role the article from Institute for Historical Review, an organization that folks can judge for themselves. OneVoice 04:21, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No need to change anything I wrote on that basis. If there was such an affidavit of Wisliceny it would have been quoted by the historians who have written on this subject. If you believe there was one, find it. --Zero 04:45, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the maximalist statements of Husseini's views we have this from the Eichmann trial:

It has been proved to us that the Mufti, too, aimed at the implementation of the Final Solution, viz., the extermination of European Jewry, and there is no doubt that, had Hitler succeeded in conquering Palestine, the Jewish population of Palestine as well would have been subject to total extermination, with the support of the Mufti. [5]

The above quote is from the judgement, the findings of the court. The article on Husseini needs to reflect this. OneVoice 04:25, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Eichman trial prosecution was under orders from the government to bring al-Husayni into it even though he was barely relevant to the trial. The statements made about him were not established by testimony in the trial and were pure politicking. --Zero 04:45, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, do you have some basis for such a statement? This seems patently wrong. One would have to have prepared Wisliceny's statements before his (Wisliceny's) execution. Years before Eichmann was located, much less brought to Israel to stand trial. Please bring documentation to support such a slanderous charge. OneVoice 06:23, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Do your own homework. The Eichmann trial is peripheral to this page. There is a large literature on the behind-the-scenes goings on at the trial. Go and find it. --Zero 06:40, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, you make allegation and then call on others to prove you wrong. This is certainly not professional. If you have supporting documentation, please cite it, otherwise please do not make claims that you refuse to support. Testimony regarding the plans of Husseini by individuals that worked with him for several years is suitable for a page on Husseini. OneVoice 07:03, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Husayni advocated extermination of Jews before WW2

I deleted this:

Husayni, before World War II repeatedly, advocated the massacre of all Jews in Palestine and later the extermination of all Jews.[6]

This is a maximalist anti-Husayni position that cannot be supported by any direct evidence. The first part is pure invention on the part of OneVoice, since it is not even claimed in the source he gives. The second part is claimed without evidence in that source, and the place it comes from (Encyclopedia of the Holocaust) gives no evidence either. Finally it comes from a book of Maurice Pearlman (writing under the name of Waters) that features a drawing of al-Husayni on the cover with sharpened nails dripping with blood. Just the place to find carefully researched historical facts (NOT). Many pro-Zioinist writers have attempted to establish al-Husayni held these views but the best they have come up with (except for some outright lies) is inuendo and claims about what some more innocuous statements really meant.
On the other hand there is no doubt at all that al-Husayni contributed to the Holocaust. He did this by campaigning to stop the Nazis from sending groups of Jews to Palestine, which in a few cases cost them their lives. I will add details of one or two such cases when I get to that part of the article. --Zero 12:26, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

The sentences about the attempted assassination are from the 1984 paper of Mattar listed in the references. Mattar quotes from Foreign Office archives and notes confirmation from Irgun members. One thing I need to look up is whether Raziel was still officially the leader of the Irgun. There was another person (Hanoch Kalai?) in charge while Raziel was in prison but maybe that other person was only "acting" leader. This story needs to be given context according to what al-Husayni was up to in Iraq; I'll do that. --Zero 08:09, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

More notes. The Handschar (or Handzar, but definitely not Hanjar) division was raised in 1943 then went to France for its training. In France it was the only SS division that ever had a mutiny, apparently in response to the contempt shown to the Muslims by the German officers. It returned to (the puppet state of) Croatia and started operations in Feb 1944. A list of their operations is here. There is also a book about them (search Amazon for "George Lepre"). By that time, Feb 1944, almost all of the Bosnian Jews were already dead or in camps, apart from those fighting with the partisans. Since the Handschar was not involved with the camps as far as I can tell (but I ordered Lepre's book and will check when it arrives), it had no opportunity to conduct atrocities against Jews. However, the campaign against the partisans involved one atrocity after the other against the civilian population as we know. Towards the end of 1944 the division had practically disintegrated due to massive desertions, and the rump that was sent to Hungary mostly consisted of German/volkdeutsche members. In Hungary it was put into front-line fighting against the Russians. The Kama division was broken up after 5 months of recruitment failed to raise enough soldiers. It never saw action. On the Skanderbeg division's Jewish actions, see [7]. Other pages on these divisions: [8] [9] [10] [11]. -Zero 13:05, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, millions of non-Jews were killed in Holocaust. That the Muslim Nazi units were not able to kill more Jews is due to that work having been done by others already. They did their part in targeting Greek Orthodox and other groups. The Holocaust is not only Jews. Jews were 6,000,000 of 11,000,000 dead. OneVoice 04:09, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's why I deleted what you wrote. Actually the atrocities attributed to the Handschar were against Christian villages. --Zero 04:45, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, the article is about Husseini, not about Jews. His creation of units of Muslims that slaughtered Christians, his visits to the units demonstrates the individual's considerations. Perhaps you are too focused on Jews...there are a lot of other people out there...they have suffered horrible atrocities at the behest of this man as well. OneVoice 05:00, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The word "indecisive" concerning the British decision to not indict al-Husayni is nearly a direct quote. The judgment of the material presented according to internal documents of the Foreign Office was "the material ... is very vague and would certainly not be considered as decisive evidence against the Mufti for having participated in any atrocities against the Jews", and "he is not responsible for any acts of atrocity according to our official information". --Zero 13:05, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The pogrom of old Yishuv is anti-Zionist riots??

After anti-Zionist riots in 1920, in which 5 Jews were killed

I think it is misleading to call a pogrom of old Yishuv "anti-Zionist riots". If you really strive to define fine lines here, I'm sure you know some of those inhabitants of Jewish Quarter were not Zionist. Humus sapiens 04:00, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

They were anti-Zionist riots. The proximate cause was the announcement by the British administrator of the intention to implement the Balfour Declaration. Al-Husayni's contribution was to make a speech calling for union with Syria (I'll mention that later in connection with his nationalist politics.) Of course the rioters did not stop to question everyone they attacked as to whether they were Zionists or not; that's the nature of riots and doesn't change the basic facts. --Zero 04:45, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dejavu: anti-Zionism vs. anti-Semitism. The "wrong" Jews were attacked. Why not simply call it what it was: a Jewish pogrom? BTW, I agree with you on the nature of mob violence. Humus sapiens 05:18, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The reason for not calling it a "pogrom" is that that word implies that the violence was pre-planned rather than spontaneous. It is at least arguable whether the word should be used for the case of a demonstration that turned violent and then murderous. Of course some people claim this one was pre-planned but that is certainly not the unanimous opinion and such an argument belongs on the page devoted to the incident rather than here. As for what sparked it in the first place, I think it is thoroughly established that was a response to the (real or imagined) intentions of the Zionists. --Zero 06:55, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hope you won't object to the way I changed this phrase. Humus sapiens 07:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Zero0000, if you would like to re-write the world war ii section, that's fine. all improvements are welcome, of course. but lets not lose the factual material....for instance the SS rank of Husseini...the unit strengths, etc. this rather energetic man worked tirelessly during the war, lets not slight his efforts.

On a different matter, please see what i added above regarding Wisliceny....we need to find a place on the page for his testimony and the court's determination that husseini would have extended the Holocaust to the mandate, if it had been within his power. OneVoice 05:10, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is no hard evidence that Wisliceny ever gave such testimony, nor evidence that it was reported correctly if it was in fact made. But that is not the real issue. The real issue is that it is completely stupid and can't be taken seriously. Find a mainstream holocaust historian who agrees that the Nazis needed al-Husayni to help them decide whether to kill Jews. --Zero 06:59, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, the matter is Husseini support for the Final Solution regardless of whether or not him helped develop the concept. Remember we are talking about "Husayni, before World War II repeatedly, advocated the massacre of all Jews in Palestine and later the extermination of all Jews." OneVoice 07:03, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you want to write about the unit strengths and other fine details, go to Waffen-SS or somewhere else in Wikipedia and write it. For this page it is barely relevant. You obviously don't know anything about it anyway. --Zero 06:43, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, the person in the picture is Husseini, the other person in the picture is wearing a uniform of Nazi Germany. How is this not relavent to an article on Husseini. Please calm down. If you wish to discuss the facts that I have added to the page, that's certainly reasonable. OneVoice 06:49, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, if you wish to work to improve this page, make it a more complete account of Husseini, please do so. We have little about his activities after WWII. Let's not lose his activities during the war. OneVoice 07:07, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Arguing with hate-filled fanatics is bad for my blood pressure. I'll develop this article off-line and replace this version with my version when it is finished. If anyone out there who actually knows something about the subject wants to help, let me know at User talk:Zero0000.
Comment: The problem with the Wikipedia system is that any ignoramous can copy reams of crap off the web with a few mouse clicks, then demand that other people spend days in the library to refute it, after which they will put it back anyway. Let's face it, anyone who can imagine that the Nazis would allow an Arab cleric to be "instrumental in the organization and formation" of an SS division is either totally devoid of the most elementary understanding of the subject or is so dedicated to his mission that he doesn't care. Either way, I'm not prepared to work with him. --Zero 09:28, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

al-Husayni's approach to Nazi Germany from Bernard Lewis The Crisis of Islam pages viable [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0679642811/002-8025266-9572839?%5Fencoding=UTF8&keywords=al-husseini&p=S02R&avc=1&checkSum=aocKCXlfCOY%2B%2B1VlBRLRQtYvhKQ4w6ZXHMs8MQXE%2F9c%3D here] via [http://www.amazon.com/ Amazon] OneVoice 13:55, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Additional material from The Formation of Palestinian Identity: The Critical Years, 1917-1923 by Rashid Khalidi Professor of History and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations; Director of the Center for International Studies D. Phil. Oxford University 1974 currently at The University of Chicago. OneVoice 16:59, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Several examples of errors on this page are noted above and not refuted. Since I wrote them, this page has gotten even worse. I can hardly bear to look at it. What about this absolute lie: His Hanjar troopers, a special Waffen SS company, killed 90% of Bosnia's Jews. Why should this crap be tolerated? --Zero 15:21, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Zero, do you have any manners? Why should this crap be tolerated? -> Wikipedia should not contain inaccurate information -> We should work together to improve Wikipedia and ensure the accuracy of information therein. In the venacular...dude, get back on you meds.

I have changed the line as indicated in the change log.

I tried to work on this article once and read three full-length biographies and most of the academic literature on the subject in preparation. All this was a waste of time because the fanatics like you came along and destroyed the article again. Now I am not going to edit it at all (for the stated reason) except to ensure that the well-deserved tag at the top is maintained. Deleting that tag is a severe violation of Wikipedia procedures that will not be tolerated. Btw, it's still wrong about the Bosnian Jews. --Zero 11:53, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Zero, what is incorrect (after the preceding change) regarding Bosnian Jews? It is also incorrect in that it neglects to mention the Christians murdered by Husseini's Waffen SS units.

Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Edition 1990, Volume 2, Pages 706 and 707, entry Husseini, Hajj Amin Al

It so happened that Husseini made his contribution to the Axis war effort in his capacity as a Muslim, rather than as an Arab leader, by recruiting and organizing in RECORD TIME, during the spring of 1943, BOSNIAN MUSLIM BATTALIONS in Croatia comprising some TWENTY THOUSAND MEN, These MUSLIM VOLUNTEER units, called Hanjar (Sword), were put in WAFFEN-SS fought Yugoslav partisans in Bosnia, and carried out police and security duties in Hungary. THEY PARTICIPATED IN THE MASSACRE OF CIVILIANS IN BOSNIA and VOLUNTEERED TO JOIN IN THE HUNT FOR JEWS IN CROATIA... The Germans made a point of publicizing the fact that Husseini had flown from Berlin to Sarajevo for the sole purpose of giving his blessing to the Muslim army and inspecting its arms and training exercises.

capitalization added, copied from web site, so much easier than typing it in

Bosnian Jews are not even mentioned in that paragraph. In fact, except for a small number fighting with the partisans, essentially all the Bosnian Jews were already killed or in camps before the Hanschar division was mobilised. Now, like I promised, you are getting blocked for removing the tag again. Let me make it clear that it is not because of the nonsense you wrote in the article, it is because you are not willing to play by the rules. This article is in dispute so it gets a dispute tag; get used to it. --Zero 22:48, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Let's tone down the flames

"In 1947 the United Nations revealed..." - an absolute lie, like many other things in this "article". It must be one of the most dishonest articles in all of Wikipedia. --Zero 03:51, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zero, I have re-read your comments on this page, and you are nearly hysterical. You make non-stop insults towards anyone who contributes to this article; you demand that your claims be accepted without any proof, yet when someone merely asks for your sources, you repeatedly demand that they do the research for you. Then you state that everyone else here is a "hate filled fanatic", and you even admit (Feb. 1) that you won't even work with others. This only serves to convince people that you don't have facts to back up all of your claims. (People have been asking you for months, yet you refuse to comply.) The latest comment you make above ("an absolute lie") is only the latest of your attacks. If there is something incorrect about this paragraph, please work with us by citing your sources. Explain clearly and calmly what you think the error is, show your sources, and offer an alternative text. We're willing to politely work with you, if you are willing to politely work with us. RK 14:55, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, then I will politely mention that my dog leaves less smelly things than this article in my back yard. --Zero 06:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• No need to lose patience and to become acerbic, Zero, though I sympathize with your frustrations. With all respect, RK, it is the article, in fact, that is hysterical (and not in the humurous sense). Its propagandist thrust is not too subtle (in dealing so disporportionately with al-Huysani collusion with Nazis; not that this is unimportant, far from it). No mention, for example, of the Munich Agreement that allowed Britain to send a whole division into Palestine in 1938 (they only had 1-2 there in 1936) to quell the Revolt. Pretty decisive stuff that is conspiciously absent. Also, the 1947 UN Documentary claims:

Only through funds made available by Germany to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was it possible to carry out the revolt in Palestine"

We need more context for this, specifically that "only" needs to be qualified or, at the very least, the origin of the documentary (!). I have read about the Revolt in the past in both British and Israeli historical works that are considered authoritative, and I do not recall this being claimed (it has been a while, but I think this would be something I would have remembered). The burden of proof lies with the contributor, so I think it is unfair to ask Zero to trace the sources for these claims. I will eventually be rewriting the Great Uprising article (so far I only added a picture and made very minor revisions), and I am reading Ted Swedenburg's (rather impressive, though I often find myself in disagreement with it) work:

Though connected to the urban national committees, in general these bands operated independently of the Mufti and the HAC...While popular forces fought the British in the countryside, the notables of the HAC — only one of whom had been arrested — were negotiating with the enemy [Britain] for a compromise to end the conflict (p.490)

To what extent was that (secret?) Nazi funding greater/lesser than funds provided by wealthy Arab landowners, I wonder? Swedenburg dosen't mention this Nazi funding that is purpotedly so essential. Why would that be? (I was under the impression that he was far from being an al-Husayni sympathetic, not to mention Nazi sympathetic). Hmm. Other examples, so I'll end with this one for now (as I have been reading about it recently and it is fairly fresh in my mind), but it still, I think, serves to illustrate some of the underlying problems behind this article. As someone who is all for outlining the history behind the Mufti-Nazi connection, I find this article to be not up to par and far too zelous in its POV agenda. It lacks balance as a biography, it lacks references to claims it makes, some of whom I do not believe are well known in the relevant historiography and it fails to entirely account for these in a scholarly fashion. The question is not whether it an interesting article, but it living up to WP standards. El_C

There was no such thing as a documentary record produced by the UN in 1947. It never existed. There was a file submitted to the UN by a Zionist advocacy group called Nation Associates that consists mostly of newspaper clippings, a few genuine documents, and a highly nuanced narrative. I have a copy of it. It was part of the propaganda campaign to get the UN to support Zionist demands rather than Palestinian demands in the lead up to the partition vote. After 1947, "Nation Associates" (not the same group as owns The Nation magazine) disappeared. There is nothing in the file that historians have not gone over thoroughly. As far as the Revolt is concerned: active German support started in August 1938 as the Revolt was drawing to a close. To say that this support was essential is clearly nonsense. See Nafi, The Arabs and the Axis: 1933-1940, Arab Studies Quarterly; Spring 1997. --Zero 10:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Incredible(!) So revealed -to- turns into revealed -by- ? If what you are saying is accurate, and I suspect that it is, then this is intellectually dishonest (grossly) at best, and an outright fabrication at worse. I was looking through the famous (and rather comprehensive) עמוד האש (the compilation book), for insights with respect to the Holocaust article and bibliography specifically, but I also looked to see if there was any mention of the al-Husayni-Bosnia connection as stated in the article, there was no mention of it (though plenty on events taking place in the Balkans) — are these claims based on new research? If so, I wish to become privy to these (in the form of scholarly references), please. It also discussed al-Husayni Nazi sympathies, but nothing on getting funds (not to mention decisive funds) from the Nazis for the Revolt. If Nazi funds only began being channelled in 1938, then I failed to see how the Nazis helped the Revolt, considering it was concluded in 1939 largely due to Britain being able to increase their forces in the BMoP by 1/3-to-1/2, owing to the German-British Munich Accord. I think certain contributors (I don't know who, I have'nt really followed this thread beyond a day) have some explaining to do. Hmm. El_C

Some light might be shed on this A. Ciano claimed that Italy had been funding the Mufti for years. B. A certain shady Swiss financier is mentioned repeatedly as a go between. C. - According to the infamous United Nationa associations document (quoted falsely in many places there is the following document:

OFFICE OF U.S. CHIEF OF COUNSEL FOR PROSECUTION OF AXIS CRIMINALITY No. 792-PS 17 September 1945 Source of Original OKW Files, Flensburg [Excerpt] LEADS: CANARIS, IBN SAUD, GRAND MUFTI.

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT POINTS (with page references):

1. Only through the funds made available by Germany to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was it possible to carry out the revolt in Palestine. (Page 1).

2. Germany will keep up the connection with the Grand Mufti. Weapons will be stored for the Mufti with Ibn Saud in Arabia. (Page 2).

3. Ibn Saud himself has close connections with the Grand Mufti and the revolting circles in TransJordan. (Page 2).

4. To be able to carry out our work one of Germany's agents will be placed in Cairo (Page 3).

5. The document is undated but obviously written before the outbreak of the war in 1939. It is not signed.

Analyst Landmann Doc. No. 792-PS Source:The Arab Higher Committee, Its Origins, Personnel and Purposes, The Documentary Record Submitted to The United Nations, May 1947, by Nations Associates.

I examined this question at http://www.mideastweb.org/Iraqaxiscoup.htm and concluded

"As we do not have a translation of the entire text of the German documents, it is difficult to assess the exact meaning and reliability of the statement regarding the Palestine revolt, nor is there an explanation for the fact that both Ciano and the Germans claimed to be supporting the revolt. Perhaps both were supporting it independently. Perhaps the Abwehr (German intelligence) wanted to take credit for the work of the Italians or perhaps it was an invention. On the face of it however, there is no good reason to doubt this evidence." In other words - as unlikely as it sounds, it is there and cannot simply be quashed and ignored unless someone can show the whole thing is a forgery.

Sorry for long post. MEW 22:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Al Husseini's Nazi Connections, and their consequences...

I'm new to this thread and will catch up soon. I've seen a few discrepencies I would like to address after doing a little more research and preperation. For the moment, here is a link which has a bounty of reference material. Incidentally, it is provided by a Muslim: href=http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/AminAlHusseini.htm#updated There is material here to address one false assertion, that the riots against Jews weren't a pogrom because the weren't planned. The were planned, as have been most before and since. See the relevant material in the above link.

where should it go?

I read some where that Hussain (sp?) had red hair and that this helped him to gain "friends" among Nazis.

signed CD

I have also read that Hitler's comment on his hair and eye color was that Husayni must be an Aryan. Sidenote: please sign your messages with 4 tildas, like this: ~~~~ and better yet, register. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Recent revision of initial summary.

from the history: cur) (last) 13:04, 26 Mar 2005 82.38.209.239 (unecessary POV bias: (in German: Grossmufti), - removed. "during his collaboration with the Third Reich removed and replaced with a less POV bias of the nature of the award of the title of Mufti (which he had inherited from his late-father).

The article on Husseini is far from accurate, and appears to have a POV bias running most of the way through it. A few suggestions for immediate revision are below, but there are far more suggestions than I have mentioned here, but have no wish to overwhelm contributors with all suggestions at first. (Little by little, and always in the open, would seem to be the best way forward).

May I suggest that a separate section be added to talk about Husseini's Mufti status, where it could be stated more in depth that Husseini inherited the title upon the death of his father, and that it was Samuel who later awarded the title of 'Grand Mufti' to him, after granting clemency to both Husseini and Jabotinsky for their roles in the Arab Riots in Jerusalem of 1921.

Upon reading the current article, it is clearly obvious to me that there is a POV bias, and that certain 'key elements' of Husseini's have been 'conveniently' left out. These ommissions bring the article's neutrality into dispute.

There is simply NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION given regarding Husseini's leading role in the Arab Riots in Jerusalem of 1920, and again, a POV bias seems self-evident.

To solve this problem, I suggest that an extra section be added to this article. Another 'problem' arises through the current wiki-link to these riots which presents another POV bias, in that they describe the riots as a 'pogram'. In reality, 6 Jews were killed and some 200 injured (some souces say 5 killed and 211 injured). It is unknown how many of those killed were the existing Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem, and how many were Jabotinsky's self-defence force), and it is also currentlu unverifiable that Arabs had wind of the Jabotinsky's preparations for this riot. To describe these riots as a pogram is wholly misleading to the reader.

Quick Summary of initial concerns upon reading the Husseini Wiki-article:

+ Add a section on Husseini's inheritance of the title of Mufti of Jerusalem with some family history to be included, plus Samuels' intervention, clemency for the 1920 Jerusalem Riots, and the creation of the title 'Grand Mufti'.

+ Add a section on the Jerusalem Riot of 1920, clearly citing the preparations from both Arab and Jewish sides for the riots.

? Consider re-writing of the link to the Jerusalem Riots of 1920, which are currently described from a POV bias as a Jewish pogram - clearly not the case considering there was preparation before the riots from Jabotinsky's self-defence 'army', and knowledge that rumours had been circulating of a Jewish attack amongst the Arabs in Jerusalem prior to that Jerusalem Riot of 1920. The one-sided-ness of telling that tale, does both Jew and Arab a diservice here, and contributes to the general feeling that the Arab perspective worthless. Some form of balance needs to be addressed. But how can one ensure that either both POV are presented at once, or each separate POV is represented ? Would it be an 'impossible task' to divide each incident relating to Palestine/Israel into two separate and clearly marked viewpoints, in order to allow the reader to make up their own mind regarding the numerous POV bias in wikipedia regarding Palestine/Israel or Israel/Palestine conflict ?

! All sensible suggestions gratefully received.

regards, invisibleplanet

Well, the following "quote" still needs significant help:

In June 1944, Dieter Wisliceny, Eichmann's deputy for Slovakia and Hungary, told Dr. Rudolf Kasztner in Budapest that he was convinced that the Mufti had played a role in the decision to exterminate the European Jews... The importance of this role must not be disregarded... The Mufti had repeatedly suggested to the various authorities with whom he was maintaining contact, above all to Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry. He considered this as a comfortable solution of the Palestinian problem.

The main problem is that we don't know what's quoted here nor where it came from (and yes, I read through the argument above about this same paragraph). IMHO, this stuff needs a source. - KarlHallowell 06:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted: (1) Claim that the UN "revealed a documentary of captured...", whatever that means. There is no such UN document. What exists is a small file of publically known documents submitted to the UN by a Zionist organization called Nation Associates. I have this file and it has nothing that any good history book doesn't have. (2) Claimed testimony of Wisliceny at Nuremburg. Actually I don't believe that Wisliceny gave any evidence at all about Husseini in Nuremburg. I looked through the official transcript of his evidence and did not find any. This material in fact derives from from 3rd-hand accounts (in some cases, by the prosecution only) introduced into the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem under pressure from the Israeli government. (3) Unsourced paraphrase of something absurd that someone was supposed to have said to Kasztner in 1944. It needs a citation and a verbatim quotation. I suspect that it comes from the document Kasztner wrote in his own defence after he was accused of indirect complicity in the genocide of the Hungarian Jews, in which case it cannot be taken seriously without corroboration. It was also mentioned, but not by a witness, at the Eichmann trial. There are grounds to suspect that Kasztner was not even referring to the same Arab (see Mattar's book). We don't need such poor quality material here as there is plenty of solid historical data to go on. (4) Claimed war-time broadcast. Who recorded it? Where can the transcript be examined? There are lots of claims of similar nature but no evidence is ever provided. --Zero 14:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I read the book of Michael Bar-Zohar years ago but couldn't tell if it is supposed to be taken seriously. It does not look like a history book (more like a novel) and gives no sources for most of the claims it makes. There is no mention in contemporary newspapers of the events described here, but that is not proof as military censorship was in force. Has anyone seen any other source for the poison story? --Zero 14:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Assassinations

The British plans to assassinate the Mufti are documented in the book of Mattar, who quotes at length from Foreign Office documents. In order to change this description, we need an equally solid source. --Zero 01:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Mattar's version does not jibe with the Irgun's, as noted in the Mideast Web's discussiion, which says that the capture of the Mufti was proposed first by Raziel. Lapidot's account on the Irgun's website[12] says that the British came to Yitzhak Berman in 1941 and released Raziel to blow up oilfields, not assasinate the Mufti. According to former Irugnist, Prof. Yaere Yadede Raziel “had volunteered to help the British in putting out of commission the Kirkuk oil fields and capturing the Mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who had found refuge under the Iraqi Nazi collaborator's protection.” I haven't read Matter, so I leave it to you to judge credibility. Also, what is the connection between the offer by Vaad Leumi and the recruitment of the Irgun? I did not think that the Irgun was an active part, or under control of, Vaad Leumi or any other major Yishuv organization. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The article does not make a connection between the Vaad Leumi and the Irgun, and there wasn't any of a nature relevant to this article, as far as I know. On the Vaad Leumi, the mentioned leader was Pinhas Rutenburg. His proposal to the British is also reported in Joseph Nevo, Al-Hajj Amin and the British in World War II (Middle East Studies, Vol 2, 1984, 3-16). The British discussed it amongst themselves and decided it was a bad idea, but they thought Rutenburg might organize it without their help as he had a background which suggested he could. Their files cite an intelligence report that Rutenburg had been an assassin in Russia before he went to Palestine and had once killed a priest with his bare hands. ((Intelligence reports are wonderful sources of good stories but their accuracy average is low. By nature they contain all sorts of gossip and rumor as well as hard facts. So I have no idea if this story about Rutenburg is really true.)) --Zero 11:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The Irgun version of the Iraq mission is now included as much as one sentence allows. This version is from Katz, Days of Fire (Katz was a close associate of Raziel). The version on the Etzel web page is more or less the same except they don't mention the Mufti for some reason. I think there is more in a biography of Raziel by Levine, but my copy has gone missing. Btw, Raziel was no longer Irgun leader. As soon as he was imprisoned, Hanoch Kalai was elected supreme commander like it says here. --Zero 12:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I hadn't heard of the Vaad Leumi offer. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Eichmann

I deleted this: "In Septemper, 1937, Heydrich sent two SS officers, SS Hauptscharfuehrer Adolf Eichmann and SS Oberscharfuehrer Herbert Hagen to Palestine on a mission to get "acquainted with the country and the life and to establish contact with people", one of whom was the Grand Mufti." for the following reasons: (1) No meeting took place and no contact was made; (2) There is no evidence that Husayni even knew about Eichmann's visit; (3) al-Husayni never had significant dealings with Eichmann; (4) Eichmann was mainly concerned with meeting Zionists during his visit (and did meet some). I also deleted the mini-bio of Heydrich as he is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. --Zero 13:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Meeting with Hitler

I inserted some quotations from al-Husayni's meeting with Hitler from the official transcript, which was prepared by the translator Paul Schmidt. Hitler spoke German and al-Husayni spoke French, but the transcript is all in German and can be found at Akten zur D. Aus. Pol. 1918-1945, Ser. D, XIII/2. This English translation is from Fleming, Hitler and the Final Solution, 101-104. There is some dispute about what a reasonable person might have interpretted from the three words I gave in the original; the difficulty is that this was very early for Hitler to be revealing genocidal plans to an outsider, even before most senior Nazis were informed of them. --Zero 14:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

With a little help from Tom Segev, I located another account of the Husayni-Hitler meeting. Hussein Gaafer, alias John Eppler, was an Egyptian working for German intelligence who attended the meeting as an Arabic interprettor. His story was told to Leonard Mosely and is published in "The Cat and the Mice" (1958). This book is fairly rare so I have OCRed the relevant pages (26-29) and placed them at Talk:Amin al-Husayni/Mosley. Enjoy. --Zero 04:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

His SS rank

The article has the sentence "After meeting Hitler and Ribbentrop in Berlin, the Mufti was made an SS Gruppenführer by Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler." Can anyone provide a decent citation for this? I only see it on the web in mirrors and translations of Wikipedia. This claim was added by now-banned user OneVoice. It is not impossible that he has some sort of honorary rank, but Gruppenführer is a very high rank. --Zero 14:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Image talk:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg#Authentic Photo?

Why is there a faint line going down the middle of this picture? And then the part of the couch on Hitler's side is darkened. Is this a doctored photo? --AI 06:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The meeting certainly took place. It is documented in the German archives and in the Mufti's own diary. As for the photo, I don't know where it is originally from. It is quite famous though. Maybe some book gives a source for it. --Zero 10:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the "line" is just from furniture in the background. --AI 20:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

ego

I'm not sure why I can't find what I added but I think I added the info on chem. WMD about two years ago from another computer.

Comments of Former Cheif Rabbi Meir Lau

• http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1126491574434

"The so called 'religious' leader Haj Amin el Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, went out of his way to come all the way to Berlin to encourage Hitler to kill Jews. He did everything in his power to help the Nazis in their diabolical plot."

"So I do not buy it when Palestinians argue that they were victims of the Holocaust because it led to the establishment of the state of Israel."

"Before there was ever a state of Israel there was rabid anti-Semitism among radical Muslims."

"I call on Tony Blair, who was the man who is responsible for creating Holocaust Memorial Day back in 2001, not to bow down to pressures made by these radical Muslims," said Lau, himself a survivor of Buchanwald. "He should be faithful to his own convictions."

Removed Quote

I removed a lengthy POV quote from a revisionist historian who is not particularly prominent or notable. I did this because the quote entirely lacked substance - it merely asserted that the closeness of the Mufti with the Nazis was blown out of proportion after the war. Merely quoting a fringe historian suggesting that this is the case is not acceptable.

To the person that added that I say this: If you provide some evidence of how it was exaggerated put that in with sources. However inserting such a controversial statement (which is nothing more that a POV commentary) implies that this is a mainstream opinion that is backed with facts. If it is, that is what you should add - not commentary.

It also appears to be contradicted by the lengthy account of his collaboration directly above. It is hard to see how those verified accounts could be exaggerated in an unreasonable fashion.

jucifer 00:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, it will be a big improvement for Wikipedia if we remove material from peer-reviewed books published by university presses because anonymous editors think they are more significant experts. --Ian Pitchford 15:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The quote as it stood is nothing more that a POV rant. If the claim that this virtaully unknown historian makes is backed up by facts, then the facts should go into the article, if they are verifiable and not a very minor opinion (as per WP:V and WP:NPOV.)

There is an enormous amount of peer-reviewed material on the Mufti. Lengthy quotes are not needed. Where there are facts (as the many noted above the quote - which appear to contradict it) they take precedence to OPINION of minor historians.

What you need to do - instead of adding quotes that confirm your (and this authors) apparent suspicion that Jews have "played up" the Mufti's association with the Nazi's for political reasons (a bit like they do with the holocaust, to get sympathy) is you have to provide sources that demonstrate this point, not merely assert it. jucifer 15:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed books get published because authors use evidence to make a case worthy of consideration by their colleagues. Where there is a dispute over the evidence or conclusions based on that evidence those debates can be explained in the article citing the relevant works. It's nothing to do with POV in the Wikipedia usage of the term. Everyone has a point of view, but not everyone makes a publishable case citing appropriate evidence. --Ian Pitchford 15:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I myself have had peer reviewed books published - that alone does not mean that every line is quotable here. Since you do not provide any evidence for this authors conclusions, they cannot very well be disputed can they? It is merely an assertion.

If you want to put this stuff in, you could try putting in the evidence (sourced) that shows how the Zionist lobby (or whatever euphemism you prefer) exaggerated his actions. This is especially true since the idea of Jews exaggerating their victim-hood by manipulating history is something that a lot of very unsavoury people trot out - as you are well aware. So: put the evidence from the book in, not simply a POV assertion.

You have confused NPOV and NOR. Something being peer-reviewed makes it fine by WP:NOR. It does not make in NPOV. jucifer 15:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

A case is NPOV if it's based on evidence, but whether the evidence is realiable and whether the conclusion does flow from that evidence can be questioned. Admittedly, the article should explain more of Zertal's evidence regarding the manipulation of testimony by the State etc, in the Eichmann trial and the proliferation of material on the mufti following the trial. Can these matters not be judged by experts? --Ian Pitchford 16:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You must give verifiable evidence that this happened

If not this is merely a quote from a non-notable historian. You appear to be arguing that as soon as a peer-reviewed quote is added to wikipedia it cannot be justifiably deleted. This is strange. I'm sure you realise the ad absurdum implications here. I have in front of me a peer-reviewed book that claims that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz - can I quote from this book at will and without any support for the quote? Certainly not, as you are well aware.

• As a fellow professor of Psychology in the UK I am sure you will understand wiki policy. You must also understand that something being peer-reviewed has no impact on whether or not it is POV - it just means that it can be included without violating WP:NOR. This quote is totally unsatisfactory as it is simply an assertion from a non-notable revisionist historian. If you notice, all the other items that delineate his collaboration are "things that happened" and not "things that people said about what people said about things that happened".
• Since you obviously have access to this book, I suggest that you should find evidence for the claim that you are trying to make and put that in the article if it is sound and verifiable. To put it simply profesor, you are looking to find verifiable "things that happened".
• This would need to show how the Jews exaggerated his Nazi-links and where and when they did so. Incredibly, this quote merely asserts why they did it! And why did they do it? To gain political clout by abusing the memory of the holocaust to gain sympathy.

This is what you have repeatedly added to the article:

Following the the war (and most notably during and after the trial of Adolf Eichmann) the mufti's role and the extent of his influence with the Nazis were inflated in what historian Idith Zertal describes as "a landmark in the process of the organized, explicit mobilization of the Holocaust in the service of Israeli politics and state policy, especially in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict".

(This is really a sickening quote. If this represents your own personal views I am really appalled by the way.) The first part is not sourced and is not NPOV either. If you note sir, the line "the mufti's role and the extent of his influence with the Nazis were inflated" is taken as a factual premise. The quote itself is predicated on another premise to the extent that there was an organised campaign amongst Jews to "explicitly mobilize the Holocaust in the service of Israeli politics and state policy". The second quote is simply the commentary of a lone historian which is unverified and is of no direct relevance to the Mufti at all but is just a general restatement of the accusation that the jews manipulate the memory of the holocaust to further there own malign aims. Why would you even add that to this article?

• That's why this commentary is unacceptable: It is predicated on three unverified premises:
  • a) The Mufti's Nazi-ties were exaggerated after the war.
  • b) This was done by Jews/Zionists to further their malign aims, by gaining sympathy.
  • c) There is a campaign to "explicitly mobilize the Holocaust in the service of Israeli politics and state policy."
• These premises need to be verified before you can simply add this quote and then falsely claim that any sourced peer-reviewed quotation can not be deleted and needs no verification of the claims that it makes. WP:V does not mean that as long as you can verify that a claim was made you can put the claim into wikkipedia - a fortiori treated as fact allong with its underlying premises. jucifer 23:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I don't think the detailed quote really belongs there, even if the information is correct; it should suffice to say something like "Some, including Hannah Arendt and Idith Zertal, point to the exaggeration of the connections between the Nazis and the Mufti; Zertal (see reference) holds that this exaggeration was deliberate Israeli propaganda." Most of the quote is Zertal's intepretation of events and motivations, in the context of her larger thesis regarding the Israeli use of the Holocaust for political purposes, which is all well and good, but is only tangentially about al-Husayni. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Zertal

Dear Jucifer, I placed the comments below on your talk page yesterday as I didn't notice that the conversation had moved on here. I agree with you completely that the section is unsatisfactory without a summary of the evidence she finds persuasive; this got lost in a move from two other pages. However, your personal comments are unneccessary and unhelpful. Zertal has said nothing about what "Jews" have said or done in general. She writes about the actions of the state in the Eichmann trial and the statements of particular, high profile, politicians during and after it. To challenge Zertal's status as a scholar you will need to cite someone in the field. Wikipedia can't accept the assessments of anonymous contributors.

Regarding Jucifer's summary:

• I pointed out to him that this is predicated on three unverified premises:
  • a) The Mufti's Nazi-ties were exaggerated after the war.
  • b) This was done by Jews/Zionists to further their malign aims, by gaining sympathy.
  • c) There is a campaign to "explicitly mobilize the Holocaust in the service of Israeli politics and state policy."
• I put it to him that before he can add such a POV quote to the article he must provide the writers answers to how, where and when this was done and not just the why (to gain sympathy by abusing the memory of the holocaust).

Some (not particularly detailed but hopefully sufficient) comments:

a). According to Zertal during the Eichamnn trial there were "systematic references - in the press, on the radio, and in political speeches - to the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin El-Husseini, his connections with the Nazi regime in general and with Eichmann and his office in particular. In those references he was depicted as a prominent designer of the Final Solution and a major Nazi criminal. The deeds of Eichmann - and other Nazi criminals - were rarely mentioned without the Arab-Nazi dimension". (p. 100). Zertal presents examples from Davar, Yedioth Aharonoth, Ma'ariv and speeches by Ben-Gurion to Mapai activists during the trial. She points out that after the trial the Yad Vashem Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (Hebrew Edition) included an entry for the Mufti almost as long as that for Hitler and that later Netanyahu explicitly linked the Mufti to the Holocaust saying he was "one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry... collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of the plan" (p. 175). There is no historical evidence for Netanyahu's claim. As Arendt said in Eichmann in Jerusalem: "The trial revealed only that all rumors about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin El Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded". (Arendt, 1994, p. 13). b). This is nothing to do with Jews/Zionists or with "sympathy": Zertal is talking about the manipulation of the Eichmann trial by the State in the service of political aims in the Arab-Israeli conflict. c). That's right. The Netanyahu book (A Place Among the Nations) characterizing Palestinian nationalism from the 1920s onwards as National Socialist and anti-Semitic was published in 1993, when he was party leader, though it was probably written whilst he was deputy prime minister. Netanyahu goes on to describe the UN (becasue of what he sees as unjustified pro-Palestinian leanings) as a proto-Nazi organization with racist achievements exceeding those of the Inquisiton and the Holocaust. Zertal also provides evidence from speeches by Dayan and Ben Gurion to support her claim. Will you agree to this material being added to the article with accompanying evidence as outlined above? --Ian Pitchford 23:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be best if this article avoid issues which are not related fairly directly to the Mufti, so general commentary related to Israeli use of the Holocaust should be minimised. However, the political nature of the Mufti's cameo appearance in the Eichmann trial does deserve inclusion. Recall that the Mufti was not on trial and not represented. None of the material related to the Mufti introduced at the trial had any relevance to establishing the guilt of Eichmann. Rather, it was purely a case of the Israeli government taking the opportunity to teach the world that Israel's present enemies (i.e. Arabs) were the same as the Jews' old enemies (i.e. Nazis). A few relevant lines from Yablonka, Preparing the Eichmann Trial, Who really did the Job? in "Theoretical Inquiries in Law", Vol 1, No. 2: "there is an abundance of documented accounts of various forms of active intervention in the conduct of the trial by the different levels of the political sphere...The Foreign Minister [Golda Meir] was particularly eager to emphasise the activities during the War of the Mufti of Jerusalem". --Zero 09:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. I'm sure there are other articles that could host the remaining material, if appropriate. --Ian Pitchford 13:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Mufti and the Holocaust

For once I seem to agree with Zero and Ian. Indeed, it seems that there were claims that Al-Husayni was one of the architects of the Holocaust, which proved to be unsubstantieted. I suggest following text to be added to the Holocaust section:

After the World War II, some Zionists went as far as to claim that Amin al-Husayni was one of the disigners of the Final Solution. For example, Natanyahu claimed that he was "one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry... collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of the plan" (Zertal, p. 175). Especially during the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem, there were attempts to establish links between Amin al-Husayni and the Holocaust, but the trial only revealed that all rumors about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin El Husseini were unfounded (Arendt, 1994, p. 13).

--Heptor 15:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• I too agree that it should be noted HOWEVER:
  • a)It must make clear that this a minor minority opinion that is not widely held.
  • b)It in no way contradicts the irrefutable evidence of the Mufti's actual involvement (a small part of which is mentioned above).
  • c) Since this is the viewpoint of a small minority, in line with NPOV, lengthy quotes are not appropriate, and the Eichmann thing would require a lengthy analysis to make it NPOV which would be of relevance on the Eichmann page not here.
  • d)To imply that the Israelis were trying to tar him as a Nazi implies that he wasn't a Nazi - since he was a Nazi, the words need to be chosen carefully.
  • e)Since many people do claim that he was in fact, very deeply involved in instigated the holocaust - not just Israeli government sources. That maximalist position will also need be addressed in this article, if this minimalist position is.

I would support the inclusion of the following:

While the Mufti's Nazi ties and his war-time activities are not disputed, allegations have been made by a minority of historians that some Israeli figures including Binyamin Netanyahu (source to his book) have exagerated his importance within the Nazi hierarchy in order to discredit him and his proteges, such as Yasser Arafat. Others dispute this claiming that evidence shows that he was a figure of some influence who did indeed press for the extermination of Jews, and that those who try to minimize his involvement also have a political agenda.

Thinking this over it comes down to this:

• Mufti was a active Nazi with some considerable influence and big friends in Germany - and called for the killing of Jews? Yes, undisputed.

Some people: He wasn't only really evil but he was really really evil, and some people try to minimise his role for political reasons. Other people: He was really evil... but... some people try to maximise his role for political reasons.

What it comes down to is original research as to which position is correct. We can't do this so we must state both positions and both counterclaims in context. Claiming that Netanyahu is doing it to further the Zionist cause while not noting Zurtal's (discredited and generally reviled by other historians) agenda is problematic. jucifer 18:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good question to Ian. Can he validate that the view that Husayni was one of the major architects of the Holocaust was held by more than a tiny minority? I see that Arab-Nazi dimension was mentioned in newspapers, and it is evident that such dimension did exist. But was it implied that he played a major role in the Holocaust?

Otherwise, I can not see how the text I suggested would contradict that he did have nazi connections. Please evaluate my suggested addition in context:

=== The Holocaust ===

Image:Himmler to Mufti telegram 1943.png November 2, 1943 Himmler's telegram to Mufti: "In the recognition of this enemy (the world Jewry) and of the common struggle against it lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between the National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world."

When the Red Cross offered to mediate with Adolf Eichmann in a trade prisoner-of-war exchange involving the freeing of German citizens in exchange for 5,000 Jewish children being sent from Poland to the Theresienstadt concentration camp, Husseini directly intervened with Himmler and the exchange was cancelled, although there is no evidence that his intervention prevented their rescue.^[13]

Among the sabotage al-Husayni organized was an attempted chemical warfare assault on the second largest and predominantly Jewish city in Palestine, Tel Aviv. Five parachutists were sent with a toxin to dump into the water system. The police caught the infiltrators in a cave near Jericho, and according to Jericho district police commander Fayiz Bey Idrissi, "The laboratory report stated that each container held enough poison to kill 25,000 people, and there were at least ten containers."

After the World War II, some Zionists went as far as to claim that Amin al-Husayni was one of the disigners of the Final Solution. For example, Natanyahu claimed that he was "one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry... collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of the plan" (Zertal, p. 175). Especially during the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem, there were attempts to establish links between Amin al-Husayni and the Holocaust, but the trial only revealed that all rumors about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin El Husseini were unfounded (Arendt, 1994, p. 13).

Heptor 19:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, while the trial may have brought in the Mufti for political reasons, (even this is a minority position and certainly unverifiable) the evidence presented to that trial is watertight(unless you claim witness coercion or forgery. Since none of the evidence brought up at the trial is mentioned in this article I oppose quoting a fringe historian to claim that no link with Eichmann was shown (not accurate by the way) and that the Mufti was brought in as propaganda. I don't see any reason to assume bad faith on the part of the Israeli prosecutors since the Mufti came in as a potential associate.

Also saying there were attempts to establish links between Amin al-Husayni and the Holocaust implies that in actuality there were not. This in wrong even by Zurtal who accepts such links but claims that they were exaggerated. The line continues (implying that those attempts failed, when in fact this is a non sequitur) but the trial only revealed that all rumors about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin El Husseini were unfounded .

Do you see why that line is a non-sequitur? "Attempted to prove Mufti involvement in holocaust" "all rumors about ties with EICHMANN were false". Is this a quote from Arendt or a paraphrasing? Either way - it is a deceptive non-sequitur.

Also, but prenaps most importantly, this stands in direct contradiction to the court records (for example here and many other documents that corroborate the links. jucifer 19:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see this now, the wording "there were attempts to establish links between Amin al-Husayni and the Holocaust..." is unfortunate, I did not intend it to be that way. One of the advantages of discussing changes before implementing them! Should it be something like "there were attempts establish that al-Husayni closely cooperated with Eichmann in carrying out the Holocaust. But the trial revealed that, despite al-Husayni's involvement with other Nazis, all rumors about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin El Husseini were unfounded (Arendt, 1994, p. 13)." Heptor 20:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

PS: Perhaps you will find something in the court transcripts that should be included in the article? Heptor 20:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

PPS: I still wait for Ian Pitchford to show that other than Natanyahu claimed that Husayni was involved in planning of the Holocaust. The fact that the court investigated this as a possibility does not mean that this court held this as anything more than a possibility. Heptor 20:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything I noted above was sourced and direct quotations were in quotation marks with the page numbers noted and so I don't understand the request for the sources. In particular Arendt's view is clearly in quotation marks with the work and page number cited. You will need sources for the following claims you have made above:

• • It must make clear that this a minor minority opinion that is not widely held.
  • It in no way contradicts the irrefutable evidence of the Mufti's actual involvement (a small part of which is mentioned above).
  • Since this is the viewpoint of a small minority, in line with NPOV, lengthy quotes are not appropriate
  • To imply that the Israelis were trying to tar him as a Nazi implies that he wasn't a Nazi - since he was a Nazi, the words need to be chosen carefully.
  • Since many people do claim that he was in fact, very deeply involved in instigated the holocaust - not just Israeli government sources. That maximalist position will also need be addressed in this article, if this minimalist position is.
  • Mufti was a active Nazi with some considerable influence and big friends in Germany - and called for the killing of Jews? Yes, undisputed.
  • Actually, while the trial may have brought in the Mufti for political reasons, (even this is a minority position and certainly unverifiable) the evidence presented to that trial is watertight (unless you claim witness coercion or forgery.
  • I oppose quoting a fringe historian to claim that no link with Eichmann was shown (not accurate by the way) and that the Mufti was brought in as propaganda.
  • Also saying there were attempts to establish links between Amin al-Husayni and the Holocaust implies that in actuality there were not. This in wrong even by Zurtal who accepts such links but claims that they were exaggerated. The line continues (implying that those attempts failed, when in fact this is a non sequitur) but the trial only revealed that all rumors about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin El Husseini were unfounded.

All I can see here is that you both dispute the peer-reviewed literature on your authority and insist that your own POV is indisputable and therefore doesn't need to be verified in any way. Jucifer is apparently such an authority that she can even accurately repeat the claims under discussion or spell Zertal's name. If you can't even appreciate that everything said in the bullet points above can be disputed with appropriate references to the literature there's no way to proceed. --Ian Pitchford 23:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand your line of reasoning. Do you have any specific objections to inclusion of the text I suggested? Do you or do you not have any sources that can verify that other than Benjamin Natanyahu claimed that al-Husayni was directly behind the Holocaust? Heptor 23:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Alas, after Jucifer's objections, I modified the text a little. The current revision is as follows:

After the World War II, some Zionists went as far as to claim that Amin al-Husayni was one of the disigners of the Final Solution. For example, Natanyahu claimed that he was "one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry... collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of the plan" (Zertal, p. 175). Especially during the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem, there were attempts establish that al-Husayni closely cooperated with Eichmann in carrying out the Holocaust. But the trial revealed that, despite al-Husayni's involvement with other Nazis, all rumors about Eichmann's connection with Haj Amin El Husseini were unfounded (Arendt, 1994, p. 13)."

Heptor 00:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If fact Hector, Eichmann's conections with the Mufti were shown in the trial. They certainly knew each other and even corresponded. Unless you argue there has been a lot of forgery. Also, this is also a minority opinion, with many historians claiming that Husseini was was arguing for the final solution from 1940. So these claims have to added too in the interests of ballance. yours jucifer 00:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Here are some souces that argue a maximlalist position:

Some more quotes

From the mufti's diaries(1970, Falatin, Beruit), as translated and quoted by arabist Zvi Elpeleg:

There were other serious occurrences during the war, such as the attempt by world Jewry in 1944 to bring about the immigration of Eastern European Jewry to Palestine... I objected to this attempt, and wrote to Ribbentrop, to Himmler and to Hitler... until I succeeded in frustrating the attempt.

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

Here is a note on the memiors: The Mufti's appeals to all the countries mentioned, but for Turkey, were known from documents, and in large part published, not long after World War II. It appears that Husseini himself was the first to make known his appeal to the Turkish government not to permit the passage of escaping Jews through Turkish territory. This revelation came in his own memoirs issued in Arabic in 1970 in Falastin (Beirut, July 1970), pp. 4ff. These memoirs included other documents relating to his efforts to prevent Jewish escape which had been previously published. See Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites, New York, 1986; p. 268 n19. The major post-World War II collection of relevant documents was The Arab Higher Committee: Its Origin, Personnel, and Purposes. The Documentary Record. New York: The Nation Associates, 1947. This collection will be henceforth referred to as Arab Higher Committee.

Radio broadcast The Mufti of Jerusalem by Maurice Pearlman (1947), also in The Mufti and the Fuehrer by Joseph Schachtman: I declare a holy war, my muslim brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!

Nuremberg Trials in July 1946, Wisliceny (war criminal) testified:

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

Evidence introduced at the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem indicates however that the Mufti and Eichmann were close:

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

Then he goes on: "At this further conversation Wisliceny gave me more details about the cooperation between Eichmann and the Mufti. The Mufti is a sworn enemy of the Jews and has always fought for the idea of annihilating the Jews. He sticks to this idea always, also in his talks with Eichmann" - and here we have one of the points about which Wisliceny has reservations - "who, as you know, is a German who was born in Palestine. The Mufti is one of the originators of the systematic destruction of European Jewry by the Germans, and he has become a permanent colleague, partner and adviser to Eichmann and Himmler in the implementation of this programme." Here Wisliceny adds: "I have read these descriptions and find them correct, except for this, that Eichmann was born in Palestine, and that the Mufti was a permanent partner of Himmler's; this is not what I said." Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1117."

From F.W. Brecher, "Charles R. Crane's Crusade for the Arabs, 1919-39," Middle Eastern Studies, XXIV, January 1988; pp 46-47. Also see Elliott A Green, "The Curious Careers of Two Advocates of Arab Nationalism," Crossroads [published in Jerusalem], no. 33 [1992]:

the Mufti sent emissaries to Berlin in 1937 and 1939 to discuss financial, diplomatic, and weapons assistance. He also received financial support for the Arab revolt from the wealthy American anti-semite and Hitler sympathizer, Charles R. Crane who was also the patron of Husseini's associate on the Palestine Arab Executive, George Antonius.

the Mufti urged that Tripoli be "purged" of its Jews. As pointed out above, he and his associates had urged Hitler to extend the "Solution of the Jewish Question" to Arab lands. In their meeting, November 28, 1941, Hitler promised that this was part of his own plan. When the German troops crossed the Caucasus, the Fuehrer added, "then will strike the hour of Arab liberation." Hitler informed Husseini of his intent to "solve" the "Jewish problem," not only in Europe but in non-European countries as well. "The Grand Mufti replied that... He was fully reassured and satisfied by the words which he had heard from the Chief of the German State."

From Mufti apologist Majid Khadduri, Independent Iraq, London (Chatham house.) (2nd ed.) 1960; p. 185:

"that he asked of the Germans that upon their arrival in the Middle East they allow the Arabs 'to solve the Jewish Question in Palestine and the other Arab countries in accord with the interests of the Arabs and in the same ways in which this problem was solved in the Axis states.'"

American journalist Edgar Ansel Mowrer said of Husseini, "As a murderer, this man ranks with the great killers of history,"

Simon Wiesenthal, Grand Mufti:

Haj Amin visited not only Auschwitz but aha Maldanek. In both death camps he paid dose attention to the efficiency of the crematorie, spoke to the leading personnel and wasgenerous in bis praise for those who were reported as particularly conscientious in their work. He was on friendly terms with such notorious practitioners of the "final solution" as Rudolf Hess, the overlord of Auschwitz; Franz Zeireis of Mauthausen; Dr. Seidl of Theresienstadt; and Kramer, the butcher of Belsen.

From the Mufti and the Feuhrer: Whatever the precise degree of the Mufti's personal in­volvement with Eichmann's genocide activities, his broad­cast from Berlin on September 21, 1944, bears witness that he was fully cognizant of the method and scope of Nazi extermination of the Jews. "Is it not in your power, O Arabs," he asked, "to repulse the jews who number not more than eleven million?" 17 millions was the given number. Wisliceny elaborated on these private wartime revela­tions in a signed official depostion submitted on July 26, 1946, to the Nuremberg tribunal. He testified that after the Mufti's arrival in Germany he had paid a visit to Himrnler and shortly afterward (late in 1941 or early in 1942) had visited Eichmann in his Berlin office at Kur­Fiirstenstrasse 116- According to Wisliceny, Eichmann told him that he had brought the Mufti to a special room where he showed him maps illustrating the distribution of the Jewish population in various European countries and delivered a detailed report on the solution of the Jewish problem in Europe. The Mufti seemed to have been very much impressed; he told Eichmann, that he had requested Himrnler—and received a promise to this effect—that when, after the victory of the Axis, he would return to Palestine, he would be accompanied, as his persona! adviser, by a trusted agent of Eichmann. The latter inquired whether Wisliceny himself would not be disposed to take such an assignment; the offer was declined. "Eichmann was strongly impressed by the personality of the Mufti," continued Wisliceny. "He told me then—and often re­peated it later—that the Mufti had also made a strong impression on Himrnler and exerted considerable influ­ence in Arabic-Jewish affairs."

Some more starting points to work on here:Crum, 110-112; Hirszowicz, 262-63, 312-13; Daniel Carpi, "The Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin el-Husseini, and His Diplomatic Activity during World War II (October 1941-July 1943)," Studies in Zionism, No. 7, Spring 1983; pp. 130-31. Joseph Schechtman, The Mufti and the Fuehrer (New York, 1965); pp. 154-58. The sardonic use of euphemisms such as "active supervision" for the mass murder of Jews was not limited to the Mufti. Consider Count Ciano's record of a conference with Croatian officials in Venice on 16 December 1941, several weeks after Husseini's meeting with Hitler. The Croatian fascist leader Pavelitch explained to Ciano, the Italian foreign minister, that, in Ciano's words: "The most urgent problems [of the new Croatian state] were being faced, and in the front rank that of the Jews. The latter, who were 35,000 when the Ustashis took power, do not exceed 12,000 at present (Young Kvaternik [an aide to Pavelitch and nephew of the Croatian minister of war] explains this reduction by the word 'emigration,' accompanied by a smile that leaves no room for doubt)." Galeazzo Ciano, Les Archives secrètes du Comte Ciano (Paris: Plon, 1948), p. 487. The Mufti later collaborated with Pavelitch and other Croatians when helping recruit and motivate the Bosnian Muslim SS division.

There is much than this. jucifer 02:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The claims can be noted as a minority opinion, but must be balanced

Look Prof. Pitchford, are you denying that this Finkelsteinesque quote (which is simply a point made in a few cranky books) is a minority view? The view that "the Jews exaggerate the holocaust to get sympathy" (which is the content of these books) is what you would describe as a mainstream perspective amongst historians? This might be your views sir (I hope to hell they are not), but I assure you they a held by a tiny minority of people outside neo-Nazi and David Irving circles. If fact, these views are so far-out, that any politician in the west, would be forced to resign for saying them (AIPAC conspiracy maybe?).

But I am happy to see this "far-right/far-left unity clause" noted. However it must be contextualised, without lengthy quotations, and the more mainstream rejoinders noted alongside. It also wont do to include quotes that in direct contradiction to primary sources without pointing out the problems. I would rather keep this article as close to the facts as possible. Put the facts down and let people be the judge.

You want to add opinions, and I would rather avoid opinions. What would be best is if you sourced Netanyahu and showed how he exaggerated it in your own words attributing the point to these "historians". As it stands NPOV would require you to put in a dissenting view. I don't know of people that have done so - perhaps because she is not taken especially seriously. Put on the Netanyahu quote, that can then be compared to the verified facts on the matter. Otherwise, I am sure you will be happy if I quote verbatim eminent holocaust historians like Elie Wiesel and Wiesenthal on the Mufti - undisputed and unqualified.

The evidence of Eichmann's connection with the Mufti is totally sound - unless you claim the evidence at Nuremberg, Eichmann trial and elsewhere, and plenty of other primary sources is forged. So including a quote saying that there were no links needs to be qualified - pointing out the facts of the matter.

I don't want to probe you too deeply, but I am curious as to your passion for this matter. You know this guy was an appalling monster, outrageously cruel and hardcore sadist. Yet you are desperate to include what amounts to a slur that the Jews exaggerated his nastiness based a few POV "historians". What is the motive here (we both know that passions are always tied to unconscious motives Ian): is it that you like the monster, or do really like the idea that the Jews exaggerate their suffering?

P.S.(You lose a bit of credibility when you mock someones typo and use it against them - as a psychologist you might want to try and aim higher. What an embarrassing thing to do.) And frankly why the hell should anyone know how to spell Zertal's name - she isn't notable. If you go through her Google results, a large number lead to various Noe-Nazi websites. jucifer 00:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you seem to have form on these issues, as in here. You charmingly attempt to contextualise the Mufti's crimes by citing the Patria incident, which you bizarrely imply was a intentional massacre. You then boast of your courage and scholarship, since you apparently feel that baselessly attributing the worst possible intent to the actions of Jews is something shiny and new, bold and courageous. Yes, I supose that is true - I can't think of anyone who has done that before. jucifer 03:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No evidence about the Mufti was given at Nuremburg. None. As for the Eichmann trial, there is nothing "watertight" about claims made by third parties who were not witnesses to the events they claimed, nor present at the trial to be cross-examined. The facts about the Mufti's collaboration with the Nazis are presented in the article based on serious scholarship. Have you read it? I'm sorry that the article does not say that he was an "appalling monster, outrageously cruel and hardcore sadist", but that is your problem and you should get over it. --Zero 09:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe jucifer mostly refers to the Eichmann trial, not the Nuremburg trials. Remember that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability.2C_not_truth. You may or may not dispute validity of the Eichmann trial, but it certainly is more notable than the book by Arendt (who is this guy, anyway?).

Jucifer actually mentions a transcript from Nuremburg trials where Wisliceny testified that Eichmann was in fact involved with Husayni. Are there any good sources for that transcript?

Anyway, I believe that as much good information as possible should be included in the article. If there are verifiable transcripts of the Eichmann or Nuremburg trial where someone witnessed that al-Husayni was involved with Eichmann, it should be included. If there are other sources who doubt that this was the case, it too should be included. --Heptor 09:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

An engineer named Steiner, of Bratislava, wrote an affidavit in which he said that Wisliceny had told him that Husayni was a close collaborator with Eichmann. Steiner then reportedly showed it to Wisliceny while the latter was on trial in Nuremburg and Wisliceny reportedly signed it. It had nothing to do with the trial. There is another story that Rudolf Kasztner (who later had his own problems with charges of Nazi collaboration) heard something similar from Wisliceny too. The trouble is that there is no documentary evidence of any direct collaboration between Eichmann and Husayni despite a vast documentation in the German archives that have been sifted through in search of it. All we have is the (apparent) word of a leading Nazi (Wisliceny) brought to us via third parties and the denial of another leading Nazi (Eichmann). That's why serious historians do not give the story much credence. The facts that are known are that a few times (2 or 3, I'm not sure) Husayni wrote to demand that certain groups of Jews not be allowed to go to Palestine. If he knew what the alternative for those Jews would be (which is argued about endlessly, again without hard evidence) he shared the guilt for their fate. That would make him complicit in murder (unproved but plausible) but to call him a major architect of the Holocaust is ridiculous. --Zero 10:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You forgot that Wisliceny actually signed Steiner's testimony, with two reservations. Didn't we have the same discussion on the Talk:1948_Arab-Israeli_War#The_Mufti.27s_role_in_creating_the_belief_that_the_Arab_goal_was_eliminating_the_Jews?

(1) How come I actually wrote this thing that you claim I forgot? (2) Pearlman is a liar, see below, so why should I believe this? --Zero 12:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

We also have information from the mufti's diaries, that juicifer mentioned earlier. Do you have any objections against following to be mentioned in the article:

• Steiner wrote down a summary of his conversation with Wisliceny where the mufti's role was described, which Wisliceny later signed with two reservations.
• A brief summary from the mufti's diaries(1970, Falatin, Beruit), as juicifer mentioned earlier.
• A statement that Mufti's direct involvement in and/or knowledge of the Holocaust is controversial, possibly quoting (Arendt, 1994, p. 13).

As far as I can see, this is a summary of the information that came forward in this discussion.

Heptor 11:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

(1) The alleged Wisliceny claim can't be mentioned without also mentioning that no documentary evidence for it is known to exist. (2) I don't believe the claim about the diaries. Let's have a citation that someone has actually looked at. I'll accept a translation from Elpeleg (who is a serious historian), but where can I read Elpeleg's words? --Zero 12:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Maurice Pearlman

A lot of the more dubious stories about Amin al-Husayni derive from a propagandistic book by one Maurice Pearlman. I was just looking at it and noticed the following little gem that illustrates the quality of the book very nicely. He is referring to the Shaw commission of enquiry into the 1929 riots in Palestine.

• Pearlman: "There was unanimity in the findings of the commission that the attacks were planned"
• The Commission report (verbatim from the conclusions): "The outbreak was not premeditated."

So much for Mr. Pearlman. --Zero 11:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you please specify where in the Pearlamn's book I can find this quotation? Is the Shaw commision report available online? --Heptor 12:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to find the report myself, unsuccessfully. I did however find a transcript from a meeting in the League Of Nations, where the report by Shaw Commision was mentioned. An excerpt from the Shaw Report clearly accused mufti al-Husayni of instigating violence:

As appeared from page 31 of the Shaw report, the Mufti had addressed to the Administration on October 8th, 1928, only a few days, therefore, after the incident at the Wailing Wall, a memorandum in which he accused the Jews, among other things, of wishing to take possession of this Wall, called Ab Burch. This untruthful accusation had been denied by the Jewish National Council in Palestine, in an open letter, dated November 1928, addressed to the Moslem community in the country (page 30 of the Shaw report). The accusation, however, had been maintained later and had continued to spread until finally it became a general belief that the Jews wished to take possession of the Mosque of Omar itself, as well as other Arab holy places. In spite of the absurdity of such allegations and repeated protests on the part of the Jews, this belief had persisted. There was no doubt that it had largely contributed to increasing the hostile feelings of the Arabs for the Jews. [14]

A little on the side, it is interesting to note that it was violence and war-making by Arab leaders that in the end did allow the Jews to take control of the wall - something the British considered implausible in 1928. --Heptor 13:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The Pearlman sentence is on page 17. I don't know if the Shaw Commission report is on the web. I have it on microfilm together with the transcript of evidence and the Jewish Agency reply. There is a more detailed summary (mostly verbatim) from the Shaw report on Riots in Palestine 1929. Turning to your LofN extract above, your description of it is not correct. The only part derived from the Shaw Commission, as opposed to the opinion of the Mandates Commission member Van Rees, was that the Mufti had complained to the British Administration that the Jews wished to take possession of the wall. That is not incitement to violence but an expression of concern that he was entitled to make on account of his position as Mufti. In fact, his concern had some justification as not only were certain Jewish publications calling repeatedly for Jewish control of the wall but senior members of the Yishuv were making regular quiet approaches to the British with the same objective. The Jews also complained often to the British about the Arabs' alleged intentions. That wasn't incitement to vioence either. --Zero 13:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Page 17 what book? Would you care to provide a larger excerpt if you have the book, possibly an ISBN number? I noticed you claim that you have it on microfilm? Do you like have a basement full of microfilms with historic documents? Or maybe you work in some university/library? May I ask where?

The question would be: does Pearlman explicitly state that the commision concluded that attacks where planned, or did he claim that findings of the commision suggested that the attacks were planned? The first one would be a lie (provided that the excerpt is representative), the second would be just his personal opinion. In the second case, it would be dishonorable of him (but still not the same as being a blatant liar) only if he did not mention the commision's own conclusion and/or if threre is no way to interpret the report this way. I mean, if you want to dismiss Pearlman as a liar, you have to build a good case. --Heptor 14:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Pearlman used exactly the words I quoted above. You can find a scan of that page here. I have access to two large libraries with lots of Mideast material, and have a pretty good library of my own; sorry but I like to be anonymous so I won't say where. There are no modern academic historians of the middle east who quote from Pearlman, as far as I recall, since they much prefer to quote original documents or each other. --Zero 15:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

But those passages he quotes, are they genuine? As far as I can see so far, Pearlman claimed that the findings of the report suggested that attacks were planned; a viewpoint seemingly supported in the minority report by Mr. (later lord) Harry Snell. Pearlman should have mentioned that the majority report concluded, on the basis of the same findings, that the attack was not planned. Still, this alone is far from enough for a complete character assasination.

In any case, you wrote earlier that you will accept Zvi Elpeleg. Do you also accept Majid Khadduri, and transcripts from the Nuremburgs trials and the trial of Eichmann?

--Heptor 16:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)