Talk:Amin al-Husseini/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Mattar

Mattar, Philip (1998) [1988]. The Mufti of Jerusalem: Al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni and the Palestinian National Movement. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-06463-7.

A problem has arisen from the fact that different editors with different copies of this book have variously cited the same source to 1988 or 1998, and even 1992 I think. We are dealing with the same volume. If anyone has a hard copy at hand, it would be helpful to revise the citations so that they conform to the one year, whichever it may be.Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani: The book was first published in hardback in 1988, and a paperback "revised edition" came out in 1992. We should cite the revised edition, which I have a hard copy of. Amazon has never heard of a 1998 edition, so I doubt its existence. Looking at the citations, the first one was added as part of a rather hysterical edit 8 years ago: "He is blamed by many as the main culprit of sowing the seeds of the Arab-Israeli conflict." which has since morphed into "While the Palestinian historian Mattar blames him as the main culprit for sowing the seeds of the Arab–Israeli conflict". Of course, Mattar uses neither the words "blame" nor the word "culprit" and reporting Mattar in a similar way is a gross distortion. What Mattar writes on that page is "Amin became one of the leaders of a nascent Palestinian nationalist movement" and notes (since the page is about the 1919 time period) that Amin was elected president of a club whose aim was "the unification of Palestine with Syria as a means of saving Palestine from Zionist claims". Zero^talk 10:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

An obvious distortion that stuck out like a mongrel's knackers when I read it this morning while checking the page, but, caught up in the usual problem on another page of blitz editing of the kind that, regardless of close source examination, just barging restoring stuff without examining why it was revised, I didn't have time to try and check this. The sentence as it stands is an isocolon, balancing Mattar and Elpeleg, but really, on the basis of your report, it's hard to see how Mattar's actual text would allow such a phrasing. I'll just take it out. If you can slowly get the time, a few minutes each day?, just to get the Mattar book cited to one year, it would be deeply appreciated.Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I figured out why that fuckup occurred (wondering whether I might be to blame?) The bit about his being a culprit is a POV distortion of Mattar's final pages here pp.239-240. That text existed below, and the rephrasing and spurious sourcing to the 1992 book mangled that.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I got up to footnote 152 (Mattar, Nevo and Simon) where quite a lot work needs doing. For one thing one shouldn't say that Iraq was supplying oil to Germany without a source and none of those three sources have it. Zero^talk 14:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

If this is the passage:-

In mid May 1940, despairing of their ability to secure control of Iraq's oil fields and deny access to Germany, the British turned to the extremist Irgun, approaching one of its commanders, David Raziel, whom they had imprisoned in Mandatory Palestine. They asked him if he would undertake to destroy Iraq's oil refineries, and thus turn off the spigots to Germany. Raziel agreed on condition he be allowed to "acquire" (kidnap) the Mufti and bring him back to Palestine. The mission plan was changed at the last moment, however, and Raziel was killed by a German plane

or this

In mid May 1940, despairing of their ability to secure control of Iraq's oil fields and deny access to Germany, the British turned to the extremist Irgun, approaching one of its commanders, David Raziel, whom they had imprisoned in Mandatory Palestine. They asked him if he would undertake to destroy Iraq's oil refineries, and thus turn off the spigots to Germany.

Probably the latter, which is obviously stupid, since the British didn't despair in May by coming up with the plan. That was a proposal, as you no doubt know, of Pinhas Rutenberg's, which the British only mulled seriously much later in the year I'll working on it, as sources I have permit.Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm struggling for time but there are lots of problems here. One is that Raziel was already out of prison for some time before the Iraq mission was proposed. There is a lot of detail in Daniel Levine's book on Raziel but I need to read it again a few times before I can summarise. (Versions of the story are distorted because this was exactly the time period when the split with Stern occurred and there is great sensitivity around the idea of cooperating with Britain.) The word "acquire" comes from a book by Irgunist Yitshaq Ben-Ami, which I also have. There is also a problem with "The mission plan was changed at the last moment, however, and Raziel was killed by a German plane". It is true that the plan to destroy the refineries was shelved due to conditions on the ground, but there is no reason to imply that the change contributed to Raziel's death. Nobody claims that the new mission (gathering intelligence) was more dangerous than the original mission. Raziel was killed while returning to base after not going very far (Levine). Zero^talk 01:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

In trying to reframe a large article like this, one shouldn't think of time. It's taken 10 years since Pluto first proposed a rewrite, to get about 70% redocumented, and there's never a question of hurry or urgency. Suffice it to note a problem on the talk page, so it can be addressed and fixed in the following years.

I changed last night that sentence ('The mission plan was changed at the last moment, however, and Raziel was killed by a German plane') to 'Raziel and other Irgun militants were flown to the R.A.F base at Habbaniyya where he died 2 days later, on May 20 1941, when the car he was travelling in was strafed by a German plane.' (per Mattar 1984)

I also had changed the line re Raziel being approached while in prison' to 'After the coup of April 1941, British called on assistance from the Irgun, when General Percival Wavell had one of their commanders, David Raziel, released from his imprisonment in Palestine.' Changing that 'when' to after, as I'll do now, would partially fix what you noted.

The finer details on Raziel should probably go into his wikibio, which is skimpy. The relevant facts here are those regarding the British attempt to use him against Husseini, and indirectly Iraq. I wouldn't worry about it. I've been dissatisfied with lots of stuff left hanging over from the original framework of the article, which was essentially an outline of the Pearlman-Schechtman thesis that the story of al-Husseini is simply of a record of Palestinian and more broadly Arab anti-Semitism, denying Jews refuge from Nazism, and actively collaborating with Nazis to that end. Many editors still believe this, and regard any tampering with the structure as a subtle moved to understate anti-Semitism, rather than to ensure a more decentrered global perspective. The Iraq section is a case in point: reading Nevo/Mattar shows how complex all of the geopolitical conflict of interests were in the milieu and period Husseini acted in, but the section was designed simply in terms of a 'Zionist' reading, i.e. the anti-Semite went to Iraq, engineered a coup, pushed the country towards Germany, promoted the Farhun pogrom, and skipped out when the British Army 'restored' order. Accepting that framing as inevitable on Wikipedia, one has to add stuff, rather than radically rewrite, and this leads to large ugly paragraphs, unfortunately.Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Raziel was released from prison in October 1939, long before the Iraq mission of May 1941. Zero^talk 00:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Official appointment

Elpeleg (p10) says that his appointment as mufti was never gazetted (i.e., that it wasn't published in the official Gazette). However, on pages 3,4 of the Official Gazette of the Government of Palestine, No. 60, 1st February, 1922, we find "I appoint His Eminence Haj Mohamed Amin El Husseini, Rais El Ulema and Mufti of Jerusalem — Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner, 26th January, 1922." Interesting that it doesn't say "Grand Mufti". "Rais El Ulema" means the President of the Supreme Moslem Sharia Council, see Gazette No. 58. Zero^talk 13:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess that translates into an unofficial disappointment in some parts.Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Pictures

At the moment, 7 (out of 11) pictures in the body of the article picture him with nazi leaders, etc.

I think this is too much; pr WP:UNDUE, it gives the impression that most of his life was spent serving the nazis. Comments? Huldra (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed two of the least informative. Zero^talk 01:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Medoff Mackenzie

Medoff provides no primary source for his claim in his book, unlike Mackenzie, the latter has to be favored and it contradicts, especially on where they were used

(1) Medoff is not required to provide a primary source. He is a reliable secondary source, and that is enough. Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

(2) On checking, your edit summary is, also, inaccurate. Medoff does refer to a source (Łukasz Hirszowicz, The Third Reich and the Arab East Routledge, 2016 origyear 1966 pp.251-253 (and elsewhere, e.g. here) and he writes exactly as the material you edited out stated:

Despite the Mufti's attitude toward Jews, the Nazis never actually assigned him to take action on the "Jewish question"; what he did in that sphere was apparently at his own initiative. The Germans kept him on the payroll because he proved useful in recruiting Muslims for Axis military and sabotage missions. Each of these activities by the Mufti is mentioned, yet minimized, by Mattar. For example, in 1942, Husseini helped organize (fromamong Arab students in Germany and North African emigres) the "Arabisches Freiheitkorps," an Arab Legion in the German Army thathunted down Allied parachutists in the Balkans and fought on the Russian front; Mattar mentions the Legion but does not indicate that it saw action.p.327

Medoff has equal standing as RS with Mackenzie and therefore I will be reverting your edit (wùhile retaining MacKenzie.Nishidani (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Amin Al Husseni

Just watched a documentary on Husseni on AHC channel. It said he fled to France and the French held him for a while and he escaped. Went back to his home. It did not say his was imprisoned for 10 years Catdowell (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Where are you looking? I see 10 days in the article, not 10 years. Also, he didn't return home. Zero^talk 03:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Statement in article contradicts the reference given.

"During the period 1921–1936 he was wrongly considered an important ally by the British Mandatory authorities."[14]

[14] Khalidi 2001, p. 23: "There is an element of amnesiac historiography in the vilification of the mufti, influenced by his subsequent career after 1936. In fact, Husayni served the British exceedingly well for the decade and a half after his appointment, at least until 1936 when he felt obliged to align himself with a growing popular rebellion against his former British masters. One indication of how valuable the British perceived the mufti to be is the willingness of the notoriously tight-fisted Mandatory administration to subsidize him. When the revenues of the public awqaf properties declined after the Great Depression of 1929, and with it the revenues of the Supreme Muslim Council, the latter were supplemented by British subventions starting in 1931, which were naturally kept secret."

Will those controlling this site please fix this irregularity.Kombo the mzungu (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC) .It looka like, as often happens, someone fiddled with the text to smuggle in an anonymous editorial judgement. I'll remove it. Sourced or otherwise, one does not make judgements of this kind in a neutral voice.Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Gilbert Achcar quote

Hello, The quote of Gibert Achcar in the section Al-Husseini and the Holocaust is inappropriate as it is not en expert in the field, thus his opinion should not put forward as mainstream. Gilbert Achcar is controversial and shouldn't be put whiteout caution and other views of experts that contradict him. Especially, when this quotation is "fabricated" as it is not continuous and thus isn't even trustworthy. Please for the sake of the truth on the Holocaust, delete it or correct the mistake. Sincerely--ICONOFEVILSS (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Achcar is as qualified as Schwanitz and I don't see anything wrong with including this quotation. Zero^talk 03:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

False image title

The image of Husseini meeting with Muslim "volunteers" in WWII has deliberately false title. Archive metadata of original source at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_147-0483,_Berlin,_Besuch_Amin_el_Husseini.jpg#metadata , has no mention of Azerbaijanis whatsoever, besides, Azerbaijanis don't speak Arabic, and couldn't casually chat with Husseini. Please edit the title in accordance with original archive description, wikipedia is not the place for political nationalist propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.241.44 (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The caption at Bundesarchiv says "Berlin.- Amin el Husseini im Gespräch mit islamischen Freiwilligen, u.a. der 'Legion Aserbaidschan'". I don't know more about this image; maybe someone who is expert on insignia can help. Your argument is not good because the Mufti also spoke English and French and there could have been interpreters. Zero^talk 00:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The "Originaltitel" in your link says nothing about Azerbaijan, and its info tag clearly says that it is full original description text. Caption is obviously later addition, with no evidence of being true. Neither English nor French are languages spoken in Azerbaijan, and there is no evidence of interpreter on that particular photo. My point, with current information available about this picture, there is zero evidence about nationality of persons Husseini is chatting with, other than them being apparently Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.241.44 (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The original title comes with a warning that it might be unreliable. The later addition is by the Bundesarchiv so it can't be summarily dismissed. The shoulder patch worn by the guy in front matches the Legion Aserbaidschan, see [1]. It is too blurred for confident reading but it appears to start with A, end with AN, and have approximately the correct unusually large number of letters. Your comments about language have no probative value since you actually have no idea what languages those two individuals might have had in common. Zero^talk 05:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

al-Husayni studied Turkish (as did many Palestinians of notable family origins whose elite liked to prepare clan children for the Ottoman bureaucracy) since it was on the curriculum of the Ottoman junior high school (i'dadi) set up in Jerusalem several years before his birth. He then served in the Turkish army as an officer. So the niggling is based on a false premise. There would be no serious difficulties in making brief conversational exchanges, not only because a fair degree of mutual intelligib ility exists between the two tongues but also because Azerbaijanis themselves would have had some acquaintance with Turkish.Nishidani (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Holocaust

I noticed that in his recent revert, Nishidani restored text from Peter Novik that says "This did not prevent the editors of the four-volume Encyclopedia of the Holocaust from giving him a starring role. The article on the Mufti is more than twice as long as the articles on Goebbels and Göring, longer than the articles on Himmler and Heydrich combined, longer than the article on Eichmann..."

I was wondering why this was notable. Please note that in this encyclopedia, Husseini also has an article (~193kb) twice as long as the articles on Goebbels (~82kb) and Göring (~78kb), longer than the articles on Himmler (~100kb) and Heydrich (~73k) combined, longer than the article on Eichmann (~75kb).

Why are we making this seem like something unusual? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It has been a part of the text for years. Why is it not notable?Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Because it seems pretty normal, eg it happens in Wikipedia as well, as I show above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer that Novick be named (not "according to Novick", since the fact is easily checked, but something like "Novick has observed"). It is notable because several authors have repeated it. It is normal, yes, but that's because Novick is correct: the opportunity for associating Arabs with Nazis is too tempting for many authors to resist. It is a valid notable point to make with attribution. Zero^talk 03:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I deleted some excess text and Nishidani restored it. Is this text contributing anything to the article? e.g.

1. Robert Fisk paragraph ?
2. (Novick) "has argued that the post-war historiographical depiction of al-Husseini reflected complex geopolitical interests that distorted the record." Instead of this long sentence I wrote just "says". The proposed "Novick has observed" is fine too.
3. (Novick says ) " a pre-World War II Palestinian nationalist leader who, to escape imprisonment by the British".
4. Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. The Article already quote Bernard Lewis that "called Wisliceny's testimony into doubt: 'There is no independent documentary confirmation of Wisliceny's statements, and it seems unlikely that the Nazis needed any such additional encouragement from the outside". Lewis words transmit the right message, and make the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust paragraph redundant. So I propose either to delete this paragraph, or to move one of those 2 statements near the other one.

-"The opportunity for associating Arabs with Nazis is too tempting for many authors to resist". Those authors are probably politicians or extreme rightists. They do not need real facts for those observations, and there is no way to block them. The same goes with "Clinton's Middle East tour has been overshadowed by anti-Israeli rhetoric from Soha Arafat, the wife of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Mrs Arafat used the occasion of Clinton's visit to accuse Israel of contaminating Palestinian lands with poison gas " Ykantor (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

What has all that got to do with the price of fish? other than reminding me of David Dean Shulman's tragic account of how the systematic seeding of poisoned barley by Maon settlers to destroy the hardscrabble pastoralists' livelihood in the South Hebron hills and drive them by leaving the grazing hills so contaminated that not only Palestinian sheep, but magnificent wild animals like the samur and the ghazal were regularly found at dawn, along with poisoned flocks, all dead from the toxicity. Anyone can pass his time feeding a fervid imagination on the infinitre number of stories in all countries' histories like that, and get toxically prejudiced, be it here, Arab, Israeli, or whoever, so please, just drop it.Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I was talking specifically about the text relating to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. As it stands now, it seems to be implying that a longer article for Husseini than for high ranking Nazi officials means something about the intent of those who wrote the encyclopedia. Considering the same situation appears in Wikipedia, that seems misleading. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The intent of the massive number of accounts coming from, and editing about, Israel and Palestine, is questionable. Perhaps a topic ban for those with a connection is in order, similar to the scientology ban.76.70.6.43 (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Some of the best editors I've seen in my 11 years in Wikipedia were Israeli or Arab. Some of the worst too, admittedly. We can't judge by such a crude criterion. Zero^talk 03:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Novick believes that the longer entry for the mufti does show something about the intent of its writers. He explicitly connects it with the theme of associating Palestinian with Nazis. The comparison with Wikipedia is shaky since Wikipedia grows in ways that no paper encyclopedia ever did, but still I personally believe that the desire to associate Palestinians with Nazis is one of the main reasons our article gets so much attention. Actually I think that is blindingly obvious. So I don't accept your analysis here, which is in any case OR. The fact is that a well known historian made this observation and other well known historians thought it worth quoting. So it satisfies both sourcing and weight requirements. Zero^talk 03:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I know this is an old discussion, but yeah comparing a "paper" encyclopedia with Wikipedia makes no sense. Editors of print encyclopedias have to decide how long or short each article should be so as to keep the number of pages down to a "reasonable" size. If a print encyclopedia on the Holocaust has a longer entry on al-Husseini than on Nazi officials like Heydrich, then the implication is that the editors considered al-Husseini sufficiently important enough to the subject to warrant such long coverage. Whether an article of such length is actually warranted is, of course, another matter. --Ismail (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

- Is it OK to delete the redundant text as in my points 1,2 3 ?

- Is it OK to move one of those sentences to the location of the other one? see my previous point 4.

- @Nishidani: Suha Araft falsely accused the state of Israel and not some criminals from the Maon settlement. Ykantor (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I see no redundancy here, though there is a certain amount of redundancy in the WW2 sections for example in the text above. No one mentions that. This section has long been stable. Suha Arafat's idiotic remarks have no more relevance here than several dozen remarks I could cite from senior Israeli figures regarding the whole Palestinian people exemplifying similar obtusity. Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The end of the Header.

The bottom of the wikipedia opener has this: Opponents of Palestinian nationalism have pointed to Husseini's wartime residence and propaganda activities in Nazi Germany to associate the Palestinian national movement with European-style anti-semitism.[a]

Here is the source:

"The Hajj Amin's opportunistic wartime residence and propaganda activities in Nazi Germany certainly was not the proudest moment in the history of Palestinian nationalism. And, certainly, opponents of Palestinian nationalism have made good use of those activities to associate the Palestinian national movement with European-style anti-Semitism and the genocidal program of the Nazis. But it should be remembered that the Hajj Amin was not the only non-European nationalist leader to find refuge and succor in Berlin at this time. While in Berlin, the Hajj might have rubbed shoulders with Subhas Chandra Bose, a leader of the nationalist Congress Party of India, who believed that Germany might prove to be an effective ally in the struggle against British imperialism… Or the Hajj Amin might have bumped into Pierre Gemayel, the leader of a Lebanese Christian group called the Phalange, who believed that Nazi Germany represented the wave of the future… Members of the Stern Gang also sought a tactical partnership with Nazi Germany and even opened negotiations with Hitler's government." (Gelvin 2014, pp. 119–120)

First of all, this book is clearly trying to negate the reality of Mufti being Anti-Semitic. Second of all, the Stern Gang, which was a small group of about 12-20 people forced out of the Lehi, was rebuffed by the Nazis. The "open negotiations" is blatantly false, and the wikipedia article on it says so. Thirdly, "European-style anti-semitism" makes no sense here, as it never defines the supposed difference between European and Middle-Eastern anti-semitism, and more importantly acts like one is good. Most importantly, their is not a single fact in that book supporting the statement made, and more importantly, the book it IS taken from is openly bias from a Palestinian nationalist perspective. I see no sane reason why it should be quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:B806:6CC5:17D:1C8 (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You can't disqualify a book written by a UCLA professor and published by one of the most eminent university presses just by expressing your dislike of it. You are also confused on the facts: "Stern Gang" was a popular name for the Lehi, not an off-shoot. It had many more than 12-20 members, and "opened negotiations with Hitler's government" is absolutely true even though Germany didn't respond to their overtures. Zero^talk 04:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

And you can't pretend he is taken seriously by the majority of academics in that regard today. Notably, since he wrote that, evidence has come out showing the Mufti was actively visiting and supporting concentration camps (https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/amin-al-husseini-nazi-concentration-camp) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:a1c0:6d40:6cd7:bcd1:592a:b34e (talk • contribs)

Want to sign this? Is it OK with you if I take the UCLA prof over tabletmag?Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The article in Tablet is interesting but unfortunately Schwanitz, who used to be a solid historian, has become a dedicated propagandist. One can see it at the end where he writes "Due to this new photographic evidence explained here, it seems that the last word should belong to the Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal, who asserted that the grand mufti met Hitler several times and that the mufti had visited a concentration camp as part of a commission or group. Wiesenthal has been proven correct...". Schwanitz has elided Wiesenthal's actual claim, namely that al-Husseini visited Auschwitz. A photo of him at a little-known work camp in Germany doesn't support Wiesenthal in the least. Zero^talk 14:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Zero0000. Putting personal characterizations of Schwanitz's work aside, I believe that the photo itself should be included in the Wikipedia article to provide a fuller context of Husseini's allegiance with the Nazis. The Trebbin camp seen in the photo is a subcamp of Sachsenhausen, a widely known concentration camp in Holocaust history. Inclusion of the photo allows for the evidence to be presented, and Schwanitz's interpretation of it to be excluded. Shane 14:55, 7 April 2021 (EST)

I have the distinct impression that you are trolling, disillusion me.Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, not my intention. I don't see an argument there. It's a historical photograph that is relevant to the person in the article. Shane 14:55, 7 April 2021 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane Azbel (talk • contribs)

If you put four ~'s your sig should show up correctly.Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You can upload photos here, assuming there are no copyright issues.Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm new and still figuring it out. Pardon the strange signatures. Shane Azbel (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2021 (EST)

I object to the photo being on this page for several reasons. For one thing, it is unknown where and when the photo was taken. The stamp "Photo-Gerhards Trebbin" only indicates it was developed by the Gerhards photographic company at Trebbin. (It appears to still exist, see here for example.) Schwanitz's assertion that they were probably also taken at the Trebbin camp is no more than a guess. "About 1943" is also a guess. It seems that little information about the camp is available. The best I can find is in the The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945, Volume I (called the Glau camp). It had 100–200 prisoners used as slave labor for the SS. Unlike the emphasis on Jewish prisoners in most of the subcamp articles in that source, the article on Glau-Trebbin does not mention any Jews (another aspect that Schwanitz has left us to assume on our own). Zero^talk 08:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources, not original research. Atchom (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Another thing to note is that there were two camps at Trebbin, with only barbed-wire between them. The other one was a POW camp. So, even if the photo does show a camp at Trebbin, we don't know which one. Zero^talk 09:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Now added (as text) by someone else. This first started doing the rounds in 2017 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/MAGAZINE-revealed-photos-of-palestinian-mufti-visiting-nazi-germany-1.5483980 Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Trebbin is a subcamp of Sachsenhausen, so you won't find much information about it online. There is a plethora of information on Sachsenhausen. It was the northern counterpart of the central Buchenwald and southern Dachau camps. (see https://www.britannica.com/place/Sachsenhausen-concentration-camp-Germany). Being that the photo was developed in Trebbin, in northern Germany, with Husseini flanked by concentration camp brass (tours were regularly conducted at Sachsenhausen), facing a camp-like structure behind a barbed-wire fence is more than enough circumstantial evidence to indicate that Husseini was at a German concentration camp of sorts, probably in North Germany. It doesn't necessarily have to be at Trebbin. It doesn't necessarily have to have been for Jews as much as for any other group (POW, homosexuals, Sinti, etc.). I'm not sure why you believe the photograph should be excluded if the camp (potentially, no evidence either way) was not for Jews. The photo should be inserted and the assumptions left out.Shane Azbel (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2021 (ET)

We have documented this, rather exhaustively, in the article. Since al-Husayni is the ongoing object of intense historical focus, if there is anything to that photo, it will emerge in discussions in future reliable sources. Until then, nope.Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Coverage of this has been rather lame so far. It's all based on the same article by Schwanitz:

• Schwanitz, Wolfgang (April 7, 2021). "Photographic Evidence Shows Palestinian Leader Amin al-Husseini at a Nazi Concentration Camp". Tablet. Retrieved April 9, 2021.
• Schwanitz, Wolfgang (April 7, 2021). "Photographic Evidence Shows Palestinian Leader Amin al-Husseini at a Nazi Concentration Camp". Middle East Forum. Retrieved April 9, 2021.
• Brenner, Hadassah (April 8, 2021). "Grand Mufti, leaders in photo with Nazi officials at concentration camp". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved April 9, 2021.

Otherwise, it's just articles about the photos in the auction. Seems like the best course is to wait for more future reliable sources about this. We're talking about reliable sources here. - tucoxn\^talk 00:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair. Shane Azbel (talk)

Above you wrote "surrounded by concentration camp brass". Actually, of the people Schwanitz claims to identify in the photos, not a single one was concentration camp brass. They were all politicians or foreigners. Also, the only reason I mentioned that Trebbin camp may not have housed Jews was that Schwanitz uses this photo to support his ridiculous campaign to make al-Husseini the primary cause of the Holocaust. Finally, barbed wire was everywhere and proves nothing. Zero^talk 02:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

There's some mild dishonesty there. Some of the individuals were Nazi politicians and some were foreign nationalists. An individual of interest, Arthur Seyss-Inquart is seen in photo 2. He was a vehement anti-Semite who actively engaged in the Holocaust and was tried to death in the Nuremberg trials. The photo speaks for itself. It doesn't at all imply al-Husseini is the primary cause of the Holocaust. I don't think the photo implies that in the slightest. I side with Tucoxn. Should a reliable sources clarify the photo, it should be included. Shane Azbel (talk)

There is nothing new about al-Husseini associating with leading Nazis. The question is whether there is anything about the Nazis in this photo to support the claim that he is visiting Trebbin camp. Arthur Seyss-Inquart was Reichskommissar in the Netherlands for all of 1943; what is he doing in Trebbin camp? Schwanitz has not carried out the obvious test: such a high-level delegation would surely have been accompanied by the camp commandant, and all the commandants of Trebbin camp are known. Is one of them in the photos? Incidentally, it appears that practically everything Schwanitz claimed credit for was already published by Haaretz in 2017. Actually (now I am speculating) there is a reason why a delegation might have visited Trebbin that is not directly related to it being a work camp: it was used by the SS as a training ground for artillery and other military practice so perhaps there had been some sort of demonstration. Zero^talk 04:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The above is more than a fair critique of Schwaintz work, although, from your previous writing, you didn't seem very intimate with Trebbin nor Arthur Seyss-Inquart. I am not advocating for Schwaintz. Our objective is to write a biography of a historical person. A photo of a historical person alongside concentration camp brass (which Arthur Seyss-Inquart more than qualifies for), whether at (1) a military demonstration at a camp (2) a tour of a camp (3) any other Nazi tour or demonstration (although I favor (2) as the simplest), is an important one to note. It shows a degree of acquaintance with concentration camp personnel and perhaps, camps themselves. Let's wait for a reliable source to clarify these hypotheses. Shane Azbel (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2021 (ET)

You have a strange idea of what "concentration camp personnel" means. Zero^talk 14:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Being directly responsible for the exportation and murder of thousands of Jews and being hung at the Nuremberg trials for said crimes more than qualifies. I side with the judges at Nuremberg. If you define him otherwise, you can raise your disputes with them. Seems like an irrelevant semantical argument. Shane Azbel (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2021 (ET)

Schwanitz for some time look like one of those sources that technically passes RS but had to be used with great caution, i.e., when his positions are endorsed by his peers. There's a small anomaly of more importance here. Grobba stated that al-Husayni visited Oranienburg concentration camp, and we know that some members of al-Husayni's entourage visited Sachsenhausen concentration camp. Since the former was shut down ca.1936 and replaced by the latter, Grobba's reference must be to Sachsenhausen, for otherwise the remark is an anachronism. But if Husayni visited Sachsenhausen, why do our sources say that his colleagues, not the mufti, visited the latter? Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. There's definitely more to this story. I hope more research comes to light. Shane Azbel (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2021 (ET)

This all ignores the definite reality shown in those photos, that he was directly behind buildings Jews were being murdered at at the time of this photo. If you take a guided tour of Aushwitz-Birkenau, you can Cleary see this (I'm sure there's one available online, though I've only visited in-person). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A1C0:6D40:B43D:B8D1:E924:7BB3 (talk) 03:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Name in Arabic

To editor Nishidani: Years ago you attached a "verification failed" tag to the Arabic name in the first sentence. Perhaps you meant that it doesn't appear in Laurens, which appears to be cited. I can't access Laurens to check, anyway I'm not sure a citation is required as the Arabic name is the same as the English name. If necessary, this academic paper would be an adequate source. Zero^talk 05:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Can't remember what happened. We had two options Husayni/Husseini, and I did remember from Laurens that the name we have was that preferred by his francophone family. On checking back then I noticed that the source cited 1999 p.19 failed to state what I stated it said. So I added the note as a reminder to pull my finger out and find where in Laurens' first two volumes I read that. As you say, the point is nugatory, so I've eliminated it. How embarrassing.Nishidani (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Mattar also says that the family prefers "Husseini". That is also the English spelling used by the British. Zero^talk 01:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Husseini Visiting Concentration Camps

There is a sentence in the "Evaluations of Husseini's Historical Significance" section that reads, "Various sources have repeatedly alleged that he visited other concentration camps, and also the death camps of Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka and Mauthausen, but according to Höpp there is little conclusive documentary evidence to substantiate these other visits." The problem is that there is photographic evidence of Husseini visiting the concentration camp in Trebbin sometime in 1943. Source: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/amin-al-husseini-nazi-concentration-camp

Husseini also visited this camp along with the former Iraqi Prime Minister Rashid Ali al-Gaylani, the Croatian fascist Mile Budak, and the Indian Hindu nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose. Fritz Grobba, a diplomat on the behalf of Nazi Germany's Foreign Ministry to the Middle East in Kabul, Baghdad, and Jidda, was also there. Arthur Seyss-Inquart and Martin Franz Julius Luther, both Nazis responsible for the genocide of Jews, were also there. This Wikipedia article doesn't once mention Husseini's visit to Trebbin, nor does it provide the photographs clearly showing him visiting the camp, giving the implicit impression he never visited any concentration camps in Nazi Germany. EricSpokane (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The following summary of a news story on al-Husseini added to the page is being censored via a series of reverts by User:Zero0000 -- In 2017, several previously unknown photographs came to light, in which al-Husseini, can be clearly seen inspecting a Nazi concentration camp along with Nazi senior officials and government figures. The photographs also show the Trebbin camp near Berlin, which was, from 1942 to 1945, 'an SS artillery training place with a branch of the Sachsenhausen concentration camp in Oranienburg'. The photographs have forced scholars into a reappraisal of al-Husseini's obviously active role in the event. In addition, persons writing on the talk page are claiming the 'matter has been settled' by reference to this page. They also claim the photographs of Trebbin, have not been attributed to Trebbin, and that they are essentially works appearing in a vaccuum. The Wiki article gives the impression that al-Husseini was simply a religious leader in exile, and not a politician who later formed the All-Palestine Government. The result is that his appearance at the Wannsee Conference where the Final Solution was adopted is granted the air of religiosity, as if he were merely there to provide clerical assistance and charity to those in need. Far from it, taken in conjunction with his tours of these notorious camps, it now appears he was an enthusiastic and willing support of the programme, if not instrumental in its adoption. Ethnopunk (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

1941, 193 or both?

these photos were taken in 1943. The German propoganda film is said to be from 1941. In 1936 their was the outbreak of the Arab Revolt (against the British). Wasn't it tied to Germany? The pogroms in what was then defined in English as Palestine are definitely reminiscent of what was to come. (1920 in Jaffa, 1921 in Jerusalem, 1929 in Hebron, 1936 throughout Palestine)פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

No, the 1936 revolt was not tied to Germany. Zero^talk 15:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Factless source

The bottom of the wikipedia opener has this: Opponents of Palestinian nationalism have pointed to Husseini's wartime residence and propaganda activities in Nazi Germany to associate the Palestinian national movement with European-style anti-semitism.[a]

Here is the source:

"The Hajj Amin's opportunistic wartime residence and propaganda activities in Nazi Germany certainly was not the proudest moment in the history of Palestinian nationalism. And, certainly, opponents of Palestinian nationalism have made good use of those activities to associate the Palestinian national movement with European-style anti-Semitism and the genocidal program of the Nazis. But it should be remembered that the Hajj Amin was not the only non-European nationalist leader to find refuge and succor in Berlin at this time. While in Berlin, the Hajj might have rubbed shoulders with Subhas Chandra Bose, a leader of the nationalist Congress Party of India, who believed that Germany might prove to be an effective ally in the struggle against British imperialism… Or the Hajj Amin might have bumped into Pierre Gemayel, the leader of a Lebanese Christian group called the Phalange, who believed that Nazi Germany represented the wave of the future… Members of the Stern Gang also sought a tactical partnership with Nazi Germany and even opened negotiations with Hitler's government." (Gelvin 2014, pp. 119–120)

First of all, this book is clearly trying to negate the reality of Mufti being Anti-Semitic. Second of all, the Stern Gang, which was a small group of about 12-20 people forced out of the Lehi, was rebuffed by the Nazis. The "open negotiations" is blatantly false, and the wikipedia article on it says so. Thirdly, "European-style anti-semitism" makes no sense here, as it never defines the supposed difference between European and Middle-Eastern anti-semitism, and more importantly acts like one is good. Most importantly, their is not a single fact in that book supporting the statement made, and more importantly, the book it IS taken from is openly bias from a Palestinian nationalist perspective. I see no sane reason why it should be quoted.

Adding his SS grad as a SS-Gruppenführer, general of division (of the SS-Hanschar 38th division)

This military grad is written in the general informations column in the german page

Recruitment draft work in progress

Himmler had a romantic vision of Islam as a faith ‘fostering fearless soldiers’, and this probably played a significant role in his decision to raise three Muslim divisions under German leadership in the Balkans from Bosnian Muslims and Albanians .  : the 13th Waffen SS Mountain Division Handschar, the 21st Skanderbeg, and the 23rd Kama (Shepherd's dagger). Riven by interethnic conflict, the region's Jewish, Croat, Roma, Serb and Muslim communities suffered huge losses of life, Bosnian Muslims losing around 85,000 from a genocidal Četnik ethnic cleansing operations alone. ^{Please clarify since the reference does not state the cited number}. The Muslims had three options: to join the Croatian Ustaše, or the Serbian partisans, or to create local defense units. Following a tradition of service in the old Bosnian regiments of the former Austro-Hungarian army, they chose an alliance with Germany, which promised them autonomy. Husseini, having been petitioned by the Bosnian Muslim leaders, was well informed of their plight. Dissatisfied with low enlistenment, Himmler asked the mufti to intervene. Husseini negotiated, made several requests, mostly ignored by the SS, and conducted several visits to the area. His speeches and charismatic authority proved instrumental in improving enlistment notably. In one speech he declared that:

Those lands suffering under the British and Bolshevist yoke impatiently await the moment when the Axis (powers) will emerge victorious. We must dedicate ourselves to unceasing struggle against Britain -that dungeon of peoples - and to the complete destruction of the British Empire.We must dedicate ourselves to unceasing struggle against Bolshevist Russia because communism is incompatible with Islam.'

One SS officer reporting on impresssions from the mufti's Sarajevo speech said Husseini was reserved about fighting Bolshevism, his main enemies being Jewish settlers in Palestine and the English.

In an agreement signed by Husseini and Himmler on May 19,1943, it was specified that no synthesis of Islam and Nationalism was to take place.Husseini asked that Muslim divisional operations to be restricted to the defense of the Moslem heartland of Bosnia and Herzegovina; that partisans be amnestied if they laid down their arms; that the civilian population not be subject to vexations by troops;that assistance be offered to innocents injured by operations; and that harsh measures like deportations, confiscations of goods, or executions be governed in accordance with the rule of law. The Handschar earned a repute for brutality in ridding north-eastern Bosnia of Serbs and partisans: many local Muslims, observing the violence, were driven to go over to the communist partisans. Once redeployed outside Bosnia, and as the fortunes of war turned, mass defections and desertions took place, and Volksdeutsche were drafted to replace the losses. The mufti blamed the mass desertions on German support for the Četniks. Many Bosnians in these divisions who survived the war sought asylum in Western and Arab countries, and of those settling in the Middle East, many fought in Palestine against the new state of Israel.

In Sources, Henry Laurens has the wrong link

It links to this Henry Laurens (the American Founding Father) , when it should link to this Henry Laurens (the French Historian) Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Zero^talk 05:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Judeophobic memoirs?

In Amin al-Husseini#Aftermath it says:

" Al-Husseini in his Judeophobic memoirs (Mudhakkirat) never claimed to have played such a role."

I think there are some problems with that line

1. Calling his memoirs Judeophobic violates the neutrality of the article. That word should be removed.
2. 'Judeophobic' is a much less common term than 'Anti-Semitic'. 'Judeophobic' should be either be replaced with the word 'Anti-Semitic' or at least links to the Wikipedia article for Anti-semitism
3. His memoirs isn't called Mudhakkirat. That's just Arabic for 'memoirs'. The name of the memoirs is "مذكرات مُحمّد أمين الحس", or just Memoirs of Muhammad Amin al-Husayni. His memoirs is a good resource and should be cited more often.

Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The source uses "judeophobia" and gives an argument why it is more appropriate in this context than "antisemitism". We don't have to agree, but we are supposed to follow our sources. Zero^talk 01:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You mean Michael Sells's "Holocaust Abuse: The Case of Hajj Muhammad Amin al-Husayni"? I have that work downloaded on my computer. Where does he say either al-Husayni or his memoirs are Judeophobic? CTRL+F shows only 5 mentions of that word, none of which call al-Husayni or his memoirs Judeophobic.

And even if the source did, the Wiki article should at least indicate that Sells is the one saying that. Not to mention my other points. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

A little pointer on researching. In ancient times, before the invention of search machines, one couldn't explore texts by using CTRL-F. The lesson handed down from Sumer onwards and valid for 5,000 years until the internet developed, was that if you wanted to discuss a source, you read it. Apparently, this has been dispensed with. You downloaded the text and, using your search techniques, queried the presence in Sells' paper of the remark:

The judeophobia of the Memoirs is robust

Now here's the recondite trick. If you employ pre-digital methods to verify the phrase, you will find within two minutes that this remark is on page 2 of Sells' article. I.e. p.725, second last line from the bottom (maintext). To vary the Lennon song,All you need is to read what you cite. I know that's time-consuming, but alas, wikipedia still is written that way, by actually parsing sources.Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a good idea to search for a stem, like "Judeoph" then ctrl-F finds it immediately. Zero^talk 12:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I searched 'judeophobic' not 'judeophobia'. And I'm not reading a 38 page JSTOR article to verify whether or not an author used a particle word for an 11 word sentence in a Wikipedia article, when CTRL+F exists.

Anyway, the sentence should still indicate that it's Sell's opinion. Just putting that word in without mentioning that it's Sell's opinion. The source should at least be right after the word 'Judeophobic'. Not to mention my other points. I think it should be edited to:

Al-Husseini in his memoirs never claimed to have played such a role.

Calling his memoirs 'Judeophobic' is just unnecessary for that particular sentence about the 1929 riots. There's an entire section called 'Amin al-Husseini and antisemitism'. Sells is already mentioned in that section; his characterization of Al-Husseini can easily be placed there. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Writing this article required some months of reading well over two thousand pages. If you find even 38 pages (i.e., a half an hour of close concentration on reading) a waste of your time, tiresome or boring then you shouldn't edit articles of this historical complexity or comment on trained scholars whose lives are spent in intense textual study and analysis. You are opinionizing against a scholar who knows more about this than we peons, and this just abuses WP:Forum. Drop it. Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not arguing his memoirs aren't Judeophobic. I'm saying the use of that word in that sentence is unnessary. Not only is it unclear whether this is the article's viewpoint or Sell's, it doesn't fit the topic of the sentence, which is that Hajj Muhammad Amin al-Husayni denied inciting the 1929 riots. As I already said, there is an entire section literally called ''Amin al-Husseini and antisemitism'. Sell's characterization of al-Husayni would fit better there, and should honestly be discussed more in the article. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The decision of whether to attribute opinions has many borderline cases and we can't expect to always agree on it. Attributing every opinion in the text (as opposed to citing) would make an article look silly. On the other hand, opinions which are disputed should usually be attributed. In this case we don't have any dissent on the opinion and examples of agreement are easy to find, so my feeling is that the citation which tells the reader where it comes from is sufficient. However I don't feel strongly about it and wouldn't lose any sleep if the word disappeared either. Zero^talk 00:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

If the word is going to remain there, there still should some changes to the sentence.

The citation should come after the word 'Judeophobic', 'Judeophobic' should link to Antisemitism (it's already a redirect), and his memoirs isn't called Mudhakkirat - that's just the Arabic word for memoirs.

Something like this:

Al-Husseini in his Judeophobic memoirs (Memoirs of Muhammad Amin al-Husayni) never claimed to have played such a role. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• (Taking a deep breath)You contest describing his Memoirs as his memoirs because the Arabic title reads Memoirs of Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, and we should use the complete wording. This is jejune for the simple reason that it ignores the function of the possessive pronoun, which is genitive. Editors on the English wiki should not be asked to explain simple grammar, but since I've been rebrowsing Chateaubriand recently, he'll do. The full text of his autobiography is Memoirs from beyond the grave. But since that is a long title, in narrative they are Chateaubriand's memoirs
• This abbreviation is in historical descriptions, and Sells, in referring to the Mudhakkirat as 'his (Amin's) memoirs', follows standard practice. The context is clear. You wish as an anonymous editor to challenge the eminently standard grammatical shortform in pronoun usage by someone who has a chair in Islamic studies at Chicago University?
• The word 'Judeophobic' is self-explanatory, self-evident to any English speaker. If anything, it is even stronger, in its accentuation of a pathological phobia, than its synonym, antisemitism.Nishidani (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth (not much), the title on two printed editions of his memoirs is "مذكرات الحاج محمد أمين الحسيني" (Memoirs of Hajj Amin el-Husseini) and that is how Sells cites it. Personally I don't think that the parenthetical Mudhakkirat adds or subtracts anything. An option is an actual citation to the memoirs, but in that case we'd better be clear that "judeophobic" is not our assessment. Zero^talk 11:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Censorship of recent material on al-Husseini

The following summary of a news story on al-Husseini added to the page is being censored via a series of reverts by User:Zero0000 -- In 2017, several previously unknown photographs came to light, in which al-Husseini, can be clearly seen inspecting a Nazi concentration camp along with Nazi senior officials and government figures. The photographs also show the Trebbin camp near Berlin, which was, from 1942 to 1945, 'an SS artillery training place with a branch of the Sachsenhausen concentration camp in Oranienburg'. The photographs have forced scholars into a reappraisal of al-Husseini's obviously active role in the event. Ethnopunk (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

"During the past decades, new archival sources have become available. They include Nazi documents captured by the Red Army, State Department and CIA collections which have become declassified, and related primary sources from Germany. For example, in 1977, the State Department declassified the “Axis in Arabic” files of the US Embassy in Cairo. This valuable collection includes transcripts of the Mufti’s speeches to the Arab world, broadcast from Berlin by shortwave." Ethnopunk (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"It's now possible to set the record straight. Researchers have lacked access to direct primary evidence about Husseini’s time in Germany and Italy during 1941-45. Lack of evidence has hampered research about Husseini’s aims, motives, and decisions. Most of what we know about him has derived from his own memoir, written decades later, compared against colonial archives." Ethnopunk (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not Zero alone. You were asked to read this, where the consensus was for exclusion. Read it. Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that specific article has been discussed, and it contradicts much stronger sources so by consensus it was removed. That consensus still stands until a new one. nableezy - 14:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Tablet is a source of dubious reliability. In fact it is not known where the photo was taken, only where it was printed. We don't do conjectures. Your last sentence is ridiculous as al-Husseini's relationship with top Nazis was well studied already and one more photo of unknown provenance adds practically nothing. Zero^talk 00:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ethnopunk, this issue has unfortunately been settled in this earlier discussion. While I wish there were other sources to confirm what's happening in those photos, those published articles have not yet been written. The community agreed that the best course is to wait for more future reliable sources about this item. We need reliable sources to include this part of al-Husseini's life in the WP article. I would really welcome you to propose those sources here so we can include this information in the WP article. If those sources are found, I would support adding to the article. - tucoxn\^talk 13:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

As I think all would. The massive amount of manipulated or twisted use of the records regarding al-Husayni, seeping into even otherwise careful documentation, has required editors here to be particularly careful about sources, with good reason. Once the high bar is cleared, inclusion is automatic. Given the intensity of focus on this period of his life, if there is anything of substance to the inferences made about those photos, one can rest assured that the quality scholarship we privilege will not drag its legs in evaluating the material.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with "Once the high bar is cleared, inclusion is automatic". Additional considerations such as due weight are required. I'm sure you didn't intend to suggest otherwise. There is a huge amount of reliable material about al-Husseini and our job is to select a representative subset. In the case of these photos, suppose it is proved that al-Husseini visited the small work camp at Trebbin. What light would it shed on al-Husseini as an aspect of his highly-documented activities in Nazi Germany? Almost none, I propose. Zero^talk 02:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Photographic Evidence Shows Palestinian Leader Amin al-Husseini at a Nazi Concentration Camp and here is

WOLFGANG G. SCHWANITZ tablet mag article. The proof is substantive evidence that he was very much in support of the endeavour, aside from the fact that he also attended the Wannsee Conference where the Final Solution was adopted. That he represented Palestinian Leadership at such a conference, where he was not merely an observer but a eager enthusiast and supporter of the euthanasia of Jews, speaks to his culpability. One should add that he was not merely a 'religious leader' but a politician, the man who later was instrumental in the formation of the All-Palestine Government in Gaza 1948-1959. Ethnopunk (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Already discussed here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

El Husseini's attendance at the Wannsee Conference has not been discussed before. Maybe that's because it is complete balderdash. Zero^talk 10:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

See What Hitler and the Grand Mufti Really Said where the Mufti's participation is excused on the basis, the 'invitations to the Wannsee Conference had already gone out, when the decision to adopt the Final Solution was taken. The article thus moves the decision to a mere formality, where al-Husseini's participation was largely symbolic. No canvassing to get rid of Zionist Jews like Martin Buber, who had moved to Palestine in 1938. Buber had proposed the creation of a 'binational state'. Instead al-Husseini acted to prevent his from happening and was an eager supporter of the Third Reich's euthanasia programme. Ethnopunk (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

'Almost all copies of the minutes of the Vannsee Conference (the Wannsee Protocol) were destroyed by those in their possession. Consequently, our knowledge about the meeting would have been much poorer, had Robert Kempner not come across the only surviving copy in 1947.' Ethnopunk (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Apparently there are transcripts of the 1941 meeting between Hitler and the Mufti. He was invited to the later 1942 Wannsee Conference. However the decision to exterminate all the Jews had already been taken. The conference was a mere formality. Ethnopunk (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I have read the so-called 'consensus for exclusion' and can find no evidence that there was any consensus on the matter. On the contrary, the page appears to repeat my own observations regarding the evidence material and is merely an archive of previous discussion. The comments above also seem to neglect that the photographs have been attributed to Trebbin Concentration Camp. Ethnopunk (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

As of right now there is a consensus of editors ( I count at least 5 ) against inclusion. If you want to continue with this, suggest an edit together with sources that you wish to include and we will go through the whole thing again to see if that consensus has changed. Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Will do so once I have collated what I know about this man and thus what should be included. For example, that he seems to have held a press conference in 1960, denying that he knew Eichmann, despite evidence to the contrary. Ethnopunk (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

See this video from the Eichmann Trial "Footage cuts to Session 63 at 00:18:12. Submission of documents (camera focuses on one document) from the diary of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, who virulently opposed Jewish settlement in Palestine and became an ally of the Nazis) concerning the "Jews of Italy, France, and Hungary." Hausner submits two photographs, which show Himmler and the Grand Mufti, into evidence. Black screen with the words "Eichmann Trial" interrupts the video at certain points and the testimony of Leslie Gordon is inserted briefly. Some of the footage about the Grand Mufti is repeated. Hausner reads from a cable sent from Himmler to the Mufti. Video freezes from 00:25:54 to 00:26:04." Ethnopunk (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to repeat, we need to see a suggested edit, together with sources and then we will look at it again. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I refer you to the original edit above and the reason for this thread, namely the revert war, which ignores the mounting weight of evidence leading one to a radical reappraisal. Instead of freezing the page in a sugar-coated version of events, one which ignores the latest photographic evidence, in favour of the view that al-Husseini was merely a refugee (if not an enthusiastic supporter) and not even a politician, one should at very least note the controversy. I really don't enjoy having to wade through articles produced by obscure scholars without access to any of this material, claiming that since he was not part of the German High Command, al-Husseini 'played no role in decision-making' and therefore could not possibly have had any influence. This fails to explain Hitler's policy when it came to Jewish immigration to Palestine. Likewise apartheid's DF Malan, who acted to bar Jewish immigration to South Africa. Merely a card-carrying member of a political party bearing the Swastika. Ethnopunk (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

El-Husseini's meeting with Hitler is well covered in our article already, with a photo. His collaboration with the Nazis has a large section. El-Husseini's attendance at the Wannsee conference is not included because it never happened. You need to do better than come up with sources that don't support your assertions. Zero^talk 13:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

People who keep rehashing these obsessive memes should read attentively Sells' 2015 study before venturing to propose inclusions like this (esp. the pressure to include the Husayni stuff in Eichman's trial (pp237ff)). One could write a substantial book listing and analyzing the huge number of assertions about Husayni's putative key role in the Holocaust which are no longer treated seriously, for sheer lack of verifiability, or because they are known, their origins having been tracked down, to have been fabricated as opportune agitprop in campaigns to 'Nazify' Palestine national aspirations. Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The primary problem with this assertion, is the assumption that so-called 'Palestinian National Aspiration' at the behest of Arabs living in the remnants of the Ottoman Empire, is a post-War phenomenon, entirely separate from similar aspirations by Jewish Palestinians, and that the pogroms against Jews in Palestine did not occur at the same time as similar pogroms in Berlin and elsewhere. The secondary problem you face, is that al-Husseini appears to enter the scene in the run-up to the Wannsee Conference where the Final Solution was adopted, and is then seen touring concentration camps such as Trebbin. Thus "a primary aim of the Greater German Reich was the negation of a Jewish national homeland in Palestine, and Haj Amin was quoted as asserting that he was both delighted and pleased by the Nazi Final Solution of the Jewish Question during the four years that he spent within Nazi Germany during 1941-1945." Ethnopunk (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

There a number of problems with the ahistorical attempt to downplay al-Husseini's obvious role in events surrounding the Final Solution. Firstly there is the well-documented meeting with Adolf Hitler in 28 November 1941 , two months before the Wannsee Conference 20 January 1942 where the policy of extermination was formerly adopted, for which we have photographs, transcripts and even film footage. You are partly correct in that the conference attendees were mainly SS membersincluding Heydrich and Eichmann, and that Hitler did not attend. While it appears Heydrich was the one who was ordered to carry out what became known as the Wannsee Protocol, it would be erroneous to suggest as you seem to do, that Hitler played no part in the events which resulted in the involuntary euthanasia of some 6 million out of a total population of 11 million Jews, according to German records. Both Hitler and al-Husseini played supervisory roles, which may be seen in the manner in which al-Husseini is later seen touring the concentration camps, particular documented by photographs of his entourage at Trebbin. If all that we had were these photographs, one might be faced with the problem not being able to explain his contribution other than that he appears as some kind of poster-boy for Palestinian involvement in these tragic events, a man with absolutely no influence, simply taking snaps as if on holiday? However, this is not the case. In addition to the transcripts of al-Husseini's meeting with Hitler, we also have al-Husseini's own diary entries and in particular communication with Heinrich Himmler. I have sourced a previously unknown (at least unknown to me) signed photograph of al-Husseini and Himmler, which came to light after reviewing the footage of the Eichmann Trial at which the image and al-Husseini's diaries were submitted in support of the case against Eichmann. So what we have here is pretty substantive. At very least it represents a prima facie case that al-Husseini urged Hitler to deal with the problem of Zionist immigration to Palestine in an overly aggressive manner, to which Hitler responded with a policy of extermination of all Jews, regardless of their wishes to return to the Holy Land or not. The article on al-Husseini should at very least note the above controversy, if not the historical events in which he appears as an enthusiastic supporter, reviewing concentration camps as well as a special Waffen SS divisions set up as an 'extermination guard' comprising Ottoman and thus Palestinian soldiers. Ethnopunk (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is a 1943 Telegram from Himmler to al-Husseiniwhich appears to demonstrate solidarity with his cause in relation to the National Socialist Party of Germany implementation of the Final Solution:

"The National-Socialist movement of the great Germany has made its fight against world Jewry a guiding principle since its very beginning,"

"For that reason it [the movement] has been closely following the battle of freedom-seeking Arabs- and especially in Palestine- against the Jewish invaders,"

For the record, I can also show you membership cards of South Africa's National Party responsible for apartheid, showing the Swastika and words, '“The South African National Party emanates from the S.A. gentile National-Socialist movement and incorporates the said movement as also the SA Grey Shirts”. Ethnopunk (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Whilst many scholars disagree as to al-Husseini's influence, if at all, on the tragic events which follows, in their attempt to reduce the man to a mere refugee and propagandist who played absolutely no political role during and subsequent to the war, there are further problems, such as the failure of al-Husseini to refute the charges, and the fact that he never stood trial. "In June 1947, American intelligence officials reported that Husseini “promised to produce documents disproving his ‘alleged pro-Axis activities as claimed by the Jews and proving his innocence,’ but he never did so. To neutralize any U.S. effort to pursue him as a war criminal, al-Hussaini lied by claiming he had ‘never spoken against America’ in his Berlin radio talks.” Neither the United States nor Great Britain indicted him. The government of Yugoslavia, which could have indicted him for his role in helping to form the Bosnian SS Division, also declined to press charges. In the absence of a trial, Husseini and his apologists have had an easier time obscuring his record of collaboration with Nazi Germany or excusing ormisrepresenting it as desperate opportunism rather than ideological conviction."

"Amin al-Husseini held a March 4, 1961, press conference in Beirut. The Mufti, CIA cables reveal, “categorically denied any connection with the persecution of Jews in Germany during the Second World War.” He claimed that “all allegations in this respect were baseless and they were prompted by Zionists’ enmity toward him and the Palestinian national movement.”

The Mufti also distributed a statement in response to a recent book on Eichmann by the American journalist Quentin Reynolds, which alleged that Husseini had several contacts with the SS officer and had toured Nazi death camps. Husseini “said that he did not know Eichmann and that he had no connection whatsoever with him.” Further, “neither he nor any other Arab had plans in the past or at present to annihilate any race, Jews or others.” Husseini closed out the press conference by asserting that “what the Jews have done” in Israel “is similar to what the Nazis did to them in Germany” — a libel that is still echoed by antisemites today."

If confronted with the photographic evidence alone, the Arab politician would have had a hard time explaining his statements which are immediately contradicted by witnesses to the events, recorded during the Eichmann trial. This denial could only have occurred in a world before social media and the Internet. Ethnopunk (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I got as far as "Eichmann was the person who ordered Heydrich" and decided that nothing useful would be likely to follow something so impossible. Another thing: copyright law applies to talk pages as well as articles and if you don't properly cite all the stuff you copy-pasted from other places quite soon, I will delete it all. Zero^talk 09:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I've included the citations as URL links to the pieces in question. Are you now claiming Eichmann wasn't involved? Or are you claiming no instructions were issued to persons such as Heydrich? If you want we can turn the URL links into citations? Ethnopunk (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The only one claiming anything here is yourself and the onus is on you to gain consensus for any edit to the article. So far, you have not done so. Selfstudier (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, I see there's quite a bit about the Wannsee Conference that' I haven't had time to read. "Mid­level bureaucrats from a number of Nazi agencies, .. assembled at the request of Reinhard Heydrich, the chief of the Reich Main Security Office and head of the German secret police apparatus. Heydrich and his boss, Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, were in the process of assuming leadership in the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question." This meeting was a part of that process, as bureaucratic coordination would be required for the massive efforts to be undertaken throughout Europe to kill the 11,000,000 Jews described in the document. The minutes were taken by Heydrich's subordinate, Adolf Eichmann, and edited by Heydrich who substituted Nazi euphemisms for references to actions planned against the Jews." Ethnopunk (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

As well as which, a requested draft edit plus sources for it has not as yet appeared. Selfstudier (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Proposal to close discussion I've read this very long thread, and I don't see it advancing. Talk pages are not for eternal discussions. In the absence of a clear suggestion what should be included and based on which reliable sources, there's no basis to continue this discussion. Ethnopunk, much of the above seems to be you, rather than any sources, trying to construct a narrative. That violates WP:OR. Personally I would have no problem including any new information if it reflected reliable sources. In the absence of that, two months of discussion seem more than enough, and it's clear by now there is no consensus to include "anything" ("anything" is vague - and reflects the vagueness of the discussion above). Jeppiz (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  I once again point you to the summary of the discussion at the top of this section which is backed up by the following references:

  ^ https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/amin-al-husseini-nazi-concentration-camp

  ^ https://jcpa.org/article/historical-problem-hajj-amin-al-husseini-grand-mufti-jerusalem/

  ^ https://www.brunel.ac.uk/research/projects/unmasking-hajj-amin-al-husseini-through-his-wartime-letters-and-diaries

  This has absolutely nothing to do with my own 'reconstructed narrative' or POV, but rather your exclusion of the academic citations from Brunel and JCPA. You can't just ignore current academic debates merely because they are not popular amongst the Arab world, or may point to inconvenient truths. The article as it stands is a candy-coated version based upon Husseini's own memoirs and is thus anything but factual. I don't have time to tackle the entire article, but merely wish to add a section on the above controversy. Ethnopunk (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Steven Wagner (the author of the Brunel page) regards as "preposterous" the claim that al-Husseini inspired the Holocaust (Bulletin of the Council for British Research in the Levant, 2018–2019, p46). Also note how Ethnopunk claims to know better than Jeffrey Herf, a right-wing author who published extensively on al-Husseini based on primary documents. Zero^talk 00:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

References