Talk:Amin al-Husseini/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

answer from Zeq

It was written here:

"Given your unwavering belief in the historical record as you see it, I am certain that you believe that you could present a very convincing article if only Zeq didn't keep mucking it up. I am sure that Zeq feels the same way"

No. I don't "feel this way" at all. Everyone is welcome to edit the article and I have said many times on talk that both POV (his role as a palestinian national leader) should be represeted. WP:NPOV explain to us how these views can be combined. The man is viwed by many as a hero and we should not shy away from saying what he stood for. Zeq 05:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What edits do you want to make and why?

Beit Or's comment has been completely ignored and frankly, it applies to Zeq and Paul kuiper NL as well. Stop arguing about how biased or not the other guy is, and talk about specific edits. <<-armon->> 01:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The amply documented material by several distinguished historians you and Zeq consistently eliminated because you disliked it personally.Nishidani 08:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds vague. Can you post your suggested edits on the talk page? Beit Or 08:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

See Nishidani 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC) on Schechtman, Laqueur, Morris and Brenner. It's all been discussed before.Nishidani 10:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So, what's the problem with posting your desired edits here instead of referring me your prior comment where you just habitually complain? Beit Or 20:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I posted my edit, in stages, several times here and they were kicked off the page with the flimsiest of pseudo-justifications. I don't habitually complain(t?). I remark on the fact that editors here casually violate wiki procedures to get off the page reliable sources, while they edit away, and ask me, alone, to justify my reliable sources on the talk page. If I have five scholarly sources which say that historians do not see Amin's hand as the only one responsible for the 1929 riots, sources which show how complex that incident was, I do not see what justification exists to keep that information off the page, unless it is a POV-driven WP:OWN, policy, in short. I'm in no hurry. I'm waiting for serious editors to turn up Nishidani 22:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Again. PLEASE. Stop fighting and complaining and clearly discuss specific edits. Otherwise, this is just causing conflict for no purpose. <<-armon->> 01:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you see any sign of my 'fighting' please report it. I am not 'complaining' either. I am noting what I consider irresponsible conduct. You personally eliminated evidence from RSources, without an adequate justification, and now ask that I have its possible reintroduction vetted by you and others on this page. Until I am given a solid reason why Schechtman, Laqueur, Morris, Sykes and Brenner are not reliable sources for contextualizing the 1929 riots, I will refrain from wasting my time, precisely, in edit warring with irresponsible editors. I am thus refraining from 'fighting' and 'edit warring'. When I see signs of a serious understanding of what constitutes evidence and what does not, I will participate in editing the page. Nishidani 10:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, you are free to edit. Use any source which is WP:RS but you must understand WP:NPOV - what you see as "fact" is just one POV. there are other POVs. All of the major ones have room in the article. Zeq 10:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to understand WP:NPOV. You and a few others who exclude reliable sources from outstanding historians need to understand WP:Reliable Source. It is not what I see as a fact that is in dispute, but rather what you and others refuse to see as a reliable multiple-sourced series of historians' judgements which you refuse to allow into the article. Until this jejune gaming of the text ceases, there is little point in wasting time in edit wars. Go back and examine the rules. Nishidani 10:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion strikes me as completely pointless. Beit Or 10:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

True. We tried. let's keep on trying via mediation.Zeq 14:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish state - homeland

Balfour declaration and Mandate declaration didn't talk about a "jewish state" but about a "homeland for the jewish nation".
This disappointed much Weizmann and Zionist leader (like Ben Gurion who complained about this). Right or wrong, the Palestinian Arabs, and their leader the Mufti, feared that the Zionist aims was to expell them from their own country to build a Jewish state.
That is what they fought.
Source : One Palestine : complete, Tom Segev. Part I.
Alithien 20:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, Segev is a journalist, not a historian, and thus hardly an authority on historical matters. Secondly, the discussion of what or whom the mufti fought may take long, but it's best to let the facts speak for themselves. Beit Or 22:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

More important Segev is highly biased. If you think the Mufti was "afraid" of something - please find a quote where he express his concern. He did express his objection to National homeland for the Jews. Zeq 23:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no question that the Yishuv was threatening the Holy Places at least as early as 1922. They were intent on land seizures from 1881, and some of the Palestinians were getting thoroughly alarmed by 1891. There's no excuse for white-washing the historical record. PR^talk 02:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Enough with re-writes of History

"(Weizmann and Zionist leaders clearly stated they wanted Palestine to become a Jewish state and Palestinians (with the Mufti, their leader) fought against this goal and the fear they had to be expelled)" - this is not true, has no basis in sources and simply misleading. Enough with this . read 1917 Balfour, read the 1922 mandate - all keep the rights of Palestinians. No one wanted to exples them prior to the 1929 and 1936 riots. Zeq 23:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should go back to the historical sources and examine them again. The Zionists all wanted ethnic cleansing, we know of that for sure even 13 years before Herzl. Herzl himself and everyone who came after wanted it. Many/most of them knew it to be a problem and kept quiet about it, but even so there's plenty enough evidence of their intentions.

Husseini may have incited the riots in 1929 - but it was the only thing that kept the Western Wall in the legal ownership of the rightful owners for as long as it remained that way.

Even the pro-ethnic cleansing Israeli historian Morris makes that perfectly clear and we should not have to be telling you this. PR^talk 02:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Morris is a biggot and in any case what you say zionist wanted does not have bearing on what the Mufti said or did. This is not what about you or I think Zionist want - it is an article on a historic figure. Why don'y you add how he was the founder of Palestinian nationalism, his role - with Ezz a Din al-kasam and Hasan al-banna in creating arabic nationalism. There is so much to add about him instead of arguing about what Zionists wanted. Zeq 10:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotes to be added

"

…the darkest aspect of the Mufti’s activities in the final stage of the war was undoubtedly his personal share in the extermination of Europe’s Jewish population. On May 17, 1943, he wrote a personal letter to Ribbentrop, asking him to prevent the transfer of 4500 Bulgarian Jews, 4000 of them children, to Palestine. In May and June of the same year, he sent a number of letters to the governments of Bulgaria, Italy, Rumania, and Hungary, with the request not to permit even individual Jewish emigration and to allow the transfer of Jews to Poland where, he claimed they would be ‘under active supervision’. The trials of Eichmann’s henchmen, including Dieter Wislicency who was executed in Bratislava, Czechoslovakia, confirmed that this was not an isolated act by the Mufti."

Jan Wanner, “Amin al-Husayni and Germany’s Arab Policy”, p. 243 Zeq 11:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotes to be added

"

…the darkest aspect of the Mufti’s activities in the final stage of the war was undoubtedly his personal share in the extermination of Europe’s Jewish population. On May 17, 1943, he wrote a personal letter to Ribbentrop, asking him to prevent the transfer of 4500 Bulgarian Jews, 4000 of them children, to Palestine. In May and June of the same year, he sent a number of letters to the governments of Bulgaria, Italy, Rumania, and Hungary, with the request not to permit even individual Jewish emigration and to allow the transfer of Jews to Poland where, he claimed they would be ‘under active supervision’. The trials of Eichmann’s henchmen, including Dieter Wislicency who was executed in Bratislava, Czechoslovakia, confirmed that this was not an isolated act by the Mufti."

Jan Wanner, “Amin al-Husayni and Germany’s Arab Policy”, p. 243 Zeq 11:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly not to be added because it merely repeats information already contained on the page, with specific dates, from Schecthman, Hilberg and others.I.e.

:: However, Husseini did intervene on May 13,1943, with the German Foreign Office to block possible transfers of Jews from Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumenia, after reports reached him that 4000 Jewish children accompanied by 500 adults had managed to reach Palestine. He asked that the Foreign Minister 'to do his utmost' to block all such proposals and this request was complied with.[28].

This repetition of the same data is a matter of overegging the pud. Dieter Wislicency's evidence furthermore has been consistently shown to be unreliable, and is no longer considered relevant (read the page).Nishidani 11:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. you can write it more politly. I am glad you decided to contribute to the content . indeed your suggestion is a good one. Key point is "that this this was not an isolated act by the Mufti.". We can merge the two sources. also we should add more info from this article: [1] , [2] including his role in leading the Palestinians. Zeq 11:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please try to read remarks addressed to you carefully. There can be no 'merging' of two sources. The original text, cited above, about May 13,1943, is straight from the article(Amin Al Husayni), and was put there from me from Raul Hilberg's book, together with the quote following from Schechtman. The text you are trying to add says exactly the same thing, and, unlike Hilberg, gets things wrong (Dieter Wislicency), you have harvested it from a paper written by a medical doctor, Andrew Bostom, for Frontpage magazine, which happens then to cite Jan Wanner, in, “Amin al-Husayni and Germany’s Arab Policy in the Period 1939-1945”, Archiv Orientalni Vol. 54, 1986. The citation is old material, some of it extremely dated, already available from the scholarly material on the page. You must learn to distinguish serious secondary sources from the infinite number of spinoffs of those secondary sources on netrags like Frontpage magazine, which, on this particular subject, has nothing new to add to what the historians say. Nishidani 16:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

An Important source

Minutes of the meeting with Hitler and Husseini. Source: Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918-1945, Series D, Vol XIII, London, 1964, pp.881 ff.

German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini: Zionism and the Arab Cause (November 28, 1941)

Haj Amin al-Husseini, the most influential leader of Palestinian Arabs, lived in Germany during the Second World War. He met Hitler, Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders on various occasions and attempted to coordinate Nazi and Arab policies in the Middle East.

Record of the Conversation between the Fuhrer and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem on November 28, 1941, in the Presence of Reich Foreign Minister and Minister Grobba in Berlin.

The Grand Mufti began by thanking the Fuhrer for the great honor he had bestowed by receiving him. He wished to seize the opportunity to convey to the Fuhrer of the Greater German Reich, admired by the entire Arab world, his thanks of the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially the Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches. The Arab countries were firmly convinced that Germany would win the war and that the Arab cause would then prosper. The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely the English, the Jews, and the Communists. Therefore they were prepared to cooperate with Germany with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in the war, not only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage and the instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an Arab Legion. The Arabs could be more useful to Germany as allies than might be apparent at first glance, both for geographical reasons and because of the suffering inflicted upon them by the English and the Jews. Furthermore, they had had close relations with all Moslem nations, of which they could make use in behalf of the common cause. The Arab Legion would be quite easy to raise. An appeal by the Mufti to the Arab countries and the prisoners of Arab, Algerian, Tunisian, and Moroccan nationality in Germany would produce a great number of volunteers eager to fight. Of Germany's victory the Arab world was firmly convinced, not only because the Reich possessed a large army, brave soldiers, and military leaders of genius, but also because the Almighty could never award the victory to an unjust cause.

In this struggle, the Arabs were striving for the independence and unity of Palestine, Syria, and Iraq. They had the fullest confidence in the Fuhrer and looked to his hand for the balm on their wounds, which had been inflicted upon them by the enemies of Germany.

The Mufti then mentioned the letter he had received from Germany, which stated that Germany was holding no Arab territories and understood and recognized the aspirations to independence and freedom of the Arabs, just as she supported the elimination of the Jewish national home.

A public declaration in this sense would be very useful for its propagandistic effect on the Arab peoples at this moment. It would rouse the Arabs from their momentary lethargy and give them new courage. It would also ease the Mufti's work of secretly organizing the Arabs against the moment when they could strike. At the same time, he could give the assurance that the Arabs would in strict discipline patiently wait for the right moment and only strike upon an order form Berlin.

With regard to the events in Iraq, the Mufti observed that the Arabs in that country certainly had by no means been incited by Germany to attack England, but solely had acted in reaction to a direct English assault upon their honor.

The Turks, he believed, would welcome the establishment of an Arab government in the neighboring territories because they would prefer weaker Arab to strong European governments in the neighboring countries and, being themselves a nations of 7 million, they had moreover nothing to fear from the 1,700,000 Arabs inhabiting Syria, Transjordan, Iraq, and Palestine.

France likewise would have no objections to the unification plan because she had conceded independence to Syria as early as 1936 and had given her approval to the unification of Iraq and Syria under King Faisal as early as 1933.

In these circumstances he was renewing his request that the Fuhrer make a public declaration so that the Arabs would not lose hope, which is so powerful a force in the life of nations. With such hope in their hearts the Arabs, as he had said, were willing to wait. They were not pressing for immediate realization for their aspirations; they could easily wait half a year or a whole year. But if they were not inspired with such a hope by a declaration of this sort, it could be expected that the English would be the gainers from it.

The Fuhrer replied that Germany's fundamental attitude on these questions, as the Mufti himself had already stated, was clear. Germany stood for uncompromising war against the Jews. That naturally included active opposition to the Jewish national home in Palestine, which was nothing other than a center, in the form of a state, for the exercise of destructive influence by Jewish interests. Germany was also aware that the assertion that the Jews were carrying out the functions of economic pioneers in Palestine was a lie. The work there was done only by the Arabs, not by the Jews. Germany was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time to direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well.

Germany was at the present time engaged in a life and death struggle with two citadels of Jewish power: Great Britain and Soviet Russia. Theoretically there was a difference between England's capitalism and Soviet Russia's communism; actually, however, the Jews in both countries were pursuing a common goal. This was the decisive struggle; on the political plane, it presented itself in the main as a conflict between Germany and England, but ideologically it was a battle between National Socialism and the Jews. It went without saying that Germany would furnish positive and practical aid to the Arabs involved in the same struggle, because platonic promises were useless in a war for survival or destruction in which the Jews were able to mobilize all of England's power for their ends.

The aid to the Arabs would have to be material aid. Of how little help sympathies alone were in such a battle had been demonstrated plainly by the operation in Iraq, where circumstances had not permitted the rendering of really effective, practical aid. In spite of all the sympathies, German aid had not been sufficient and Iraq was overcome by the power of Britain, that is, the guardian of the Jews.

The Mufti could not but be aware, however, that the outcome of the struggle going on at present would also decide the fate of the Arab world. The Fuhrer therefore had to think and speak coolly and deliberately, as a rational man and primarily as a soldier, as the leader of the German and allied armies. Everything of a nature to help in this titanic battle for the common cause, and thus also for the Arabs, would have to be done. Anything however, that might contribute to weakening the military situation must be put aside, no matter how unpopular this move might be.

Germany was now engaged in very severe battles to force the gateway to the northern Caucasus region. The difficulties were mainly with regard to maintaining the supply, which was most difficult as a result of the destruction of railroads and highways as well as the oncoming winter. If at such a moment, the Fuhrer were to raise the problem of Syria in a declaration, those elements in France which were under de Gaulle's influence would receive new strength. They would interpret the Fuhrer's declaration as an intention to break up France's colonial empire and appeal to their fellow countrymen that they should rather make common cause with the English to try to save what still could be saved. A German declaration regarding Syria would in France be understood to refer to the French colonies in general, and that would at the present time create new troubles in western Europe, which means that a portion of the German armed forces would be immobilized in the west and no longer be available for the campaign in the east.

The Fuhrer then made the following statement to the Mufti, enjoining him to lock it in the uttermost depths of his heart:

1. He (the Fuhrer) would carry on the battle to the total destruction of the Judeo-Communist empire in Europe. 2. At some moment which was impossible to set exactly today but which in any event was not distant, the German armies would in the course of this struggle reach the southern exit from Caucasia. 3. As soon as this had happened, the Fuhrer would on his own give the Arab world the assurance that its hour of liberation had arrived. Germany's objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. In that hour the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman for the Arab world. It would then be his task to set off the Arab operations, which he had secretly prepared. When that time had come, Germany could also be indifferent to French reaction to such a declaration.

Once Germany had forced open the road to Iran and Iraq through Rostov; it would be also the beginning of the end of the British World Empire. He (the Fuhrer) hoped that the coming year would make it possible for Germany to thrust open the Caucasian gate to the Middle East. For the good of their common cause, it would be better if the Arab proclamation were put off for a few more months than if Germany were to create difficulties for herself without being able thereby to help the Arabs.

He (the Fuhrer) fully appreciated the eagerness of the Arabs for a public declaration of the sort requested by the Grand Mufti. But he would beg him to consider that he (the Fuhrer) himself was the Chief of State of the German Reich for five long years during which he was unable to make to his own homeland the announcement of its liberation. He had to wait with that until the announcement could be made on the basis of a situation brought about by the force of arms that the Anschluss had been carried out.

The moment that Germany's tank divisions and air squadrons had made their appearance south of the Caucasus, the public appeal requested by the Grand Mufti could go out to the Arab world.

The Grand Mufti replied that it was his view that everything would come to pass just as the Fuhrer had indicated. He was fully reassured and satisfied by the words which he had heard form the Chief of the German State. He asked, however, whether it would not be possible, secretly at least, to enter into an agreement with Germany of the kind he had just outlined for the Fuhrer.

The Fuhrer replied that he had just now given the Grand Mufti precisely that confidential declaration.

The Grand Mufti thanked him for it and stated in conclusion that he was taking his leave from the Fuhrer in full confidence and with reiterated thanks for the interest shown in the Arab cause. SCHMIDT

Zeq 11:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Two Important Sources for what Amin's ultra-Zionist opponents were doing in same period

(1)Nazi Admiration for Zionist Efforts in Palestine.

The Nazis were quite resigned to the partition of Palestine and their main concern became the fate of the 2,000 Germans then living in the country. A few were Catholic monks, a few were mainline Lutherans, but most were Templars, a nineteenth-century sect of pietists who had come to the Holy Land for the shortly expected return of Jesus. They had eventually settled in six prosperous colonies, four of which would be in the Zionist enclave. No matter how much the WZO leadership wanted to avoid antagonising Berlin over the Templars, now almost all good Nazis, the local Nazi party realised that any spontaneous Jewish boycott after partition would make their position totally impossible. The German Foreign Ministry wanted either to have the colonies under direct British control or, more realistically, to have them moved into the Arab territory.

Popular Arab opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to partition, although the Nashishibis – the clan rivals of the dominant Husaynis – would have accepted a smaller Jewish state. They very reluctantly opposed the British proposal and their evident lack of zeal in opposing the partition, coupled with an intense factional hatred for the Husaynis, led to a ferocious civil war within the Arab community. Outside the country the only ruler who dared to hint at acceptance of the scheme was Abdullah of Trans-Jordan, whose emirate was to be merged with the Palestinian statelet. Ibn Saud in Arabia remained silent. Egypt and Iraq’s ruling cliques publicly lamented, while privately their only concern was that the partition would arouse their own people and trigger a general movement against them and the British.

Understandably, the Germans were completely unconvinced of the Arabs, ability to stave off partition, and when the Mufti finally appeared at their consulate on 15 July 1937, Doehle offered him absolutely nothing. He immediately notified his superiors of the interview: “The Grand Mufti stressed Arab sympathy for the new Germany and expressed the hope that Germany was sympathetic toward the Arab fight against Jewry and was prepared to support it.” Doehle’s response to the proffered alliance was virtually insulting. He told the supplicant that: “after all, there was no question of our playing the role of an arbiter ... I added that it was perhaps tactically in the interests of the Arabs if German sympathy for Arab aspirations were not too marked in German statements.” [11]

In October it was the Zionists’ turn to court the Nazis. On 2 October 1937, the liner Romania arrived in Haifa with two German journalists, aboard. Herbert Hagen and his junior colleague, Eichmann, disembarked. They met their agent, Reichert, and later that day Feivel Polkes, who showed them Haifa from Mount Carmel and took them to visit a kibbutz. Years later, when he was in hiding in Argentina, Eichmann taped the story of his experiences and looked back at his brief stay in Palestine with fond nostalgia:

I did see enough to be very impressed by the way the Jewish colonists were building up their land. I admired their desperate will to live, the more so since I was myself an idealist. In the years that followed I often said to Jews with whom I had dealings that, had I been a Jew, I would have been a fanatical Zionist. I could not imagine being anything else. In fact, I would have been the most ardent Zionist imaginable. [12]

But the two SS men had made a mistake in contacting their local agent; the British CID had become aware of Reichert’s ring, and two days later they summarily expelled the visitors to Egypt. Polkes followed them there, and further discussions were held on 10 and 11 October at Cairo’s Cafe Groppi. In their report on their expedition Hagen and Eichmann gave a careful rendering of Polkes’s words at these meetings. Polkes told the two Nazis:

The Zionist state must be established by all means and as soon as possible ... When the Jewish state is established according to the current proposals laid down in the Peel paper, and in line with England’s partial promises, then the borders may be pushed further outwards according to one’s wishes. [13] He went on:

in Jewish nationalist circles people were very pleased with the radical German policy, since the strength of the Jewish population in Palestine would be so far increased thereby that in the foreseeable future the Jews could reckon upon numerical superiority over the Arabs in Palestine. [14]

During his February visit to Berlin, Polkes had proposed that the Haganah should act as spies for the Nazis, and now he showed their good faith by passing on two pieces of intelligence information. He told Hagen and Eichmann:

the Pan-Islamic World Congress convening in Berlin is in direct contact with two pro-Soviet Arab leaders: Emir Shekib Arslan and Emir Adil Arslan ... The illegal Communist broadcasting station whose transmission to Germany is particularly strong, is, according to Polkes’ statement, assembled on a lorry that drives along the German-Luxembourg border when transmission is on the air. [15]

Next it was the Mufti’s turn to bid again for German patronage. This time he sent his agent, Dr Said Imam, who had studied in Germany and had for a long time been in contact with the German consulate in Beirut, directly to Berlin with an offer. If Germany would “support the Arab independence movement ideologically and materially”, then the Mufti would respond by “Disseminating National Socialist ideas in the Arab-Islamic world; combatting Communism, which appears to be spreading gradually, by employing all possible means”. He also proposed “continuing acts of terrorism in all French colonial and mandated territories inhabited by Arabs or Mohammedans”. If they won, he swore “to utilise only German capital and intellectual resources”. All of this was in the context of a pledge to keep the Semitic and Aryan races apart, which task was delicately referred to as “maintaining and respecting the national convictions of both peoples”. [16] Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of Dictatorship, Croom Helm, London 1984

(2)'It is often stated in the speeches and utterances of the leading statesmen of National Socialist Germany that a prerequisite of the New Order in Europe requires the radical solution of the Jewish question through evacuation (“Jew-free Europe”).

The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question; but this can only be made possible and complete through the settlement of these masses in the home of the Jewish people, Palestine, and through the establishment of a Jewish state in its historic boundaries.

The solving in this manner of the Jewish problem, thus bringing with it once and for all the liberation of the Jewish people, is the objective of the political activity and the years-long struggle of the Israeli freedom movement, the National Military Organization (Irgun Zvai Leumi(= NMO) in Palestine.

The NMO, which is well-acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that:

Common interests could exist between the establishment of a new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO.

Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed folkish-national Hebraium would be possible and,

The establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.

Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany’s side.

This offer by the NMO, covering activity in the military, political and information fields, in Palestine and, according to our determined preparations, outside Palestine, would be connected to the military training and organizing of Jewish manpower in Europe, under the leadership and command of the NMO. These military units would take part in the fight to conquer Palestine, should such a front be decided upon.

The indirect participation of the Israeli freedom movement in the New Order in Europe, already in the preparatory stage, would be linked with a positive-radical solution of the European Jewish problem in conformity with the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Jewish people. This would extraordinarily strengthen the moral basis of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.

The cooperation of the Israeli freedom movement would also be along the lines of one of the last speeches of the German Reich Chancellor, in which Herr Hitler emphasized that he would utilize every combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England.

A brief general view of the formation, essence, and activity of the NMO in Palestine:

The NMO developed partly out of the Jewish self-defense in Palestine and the Revisionist movement (New Zionist Organization), with which the NMO was loosely connected through the person of Mr. V. Jabotinsky until his death.

The pro-English attitude of the Revisionist Organization in Palestine, which prevented the renewal of the personal union, led in the autumn of this year to a complete break between it and the NMO as well as to a thereupon following split in the Revisionist movement.

The goal of the NMO is the establishment of the Jewish state within its historic borders.

The NMO, in contrast to all Zionist trends, rejects colonizatory infiltration as the only means of making accessible and gradually taking possession of the fatherland and practices its slogan, the struggle and the sacrifice, as the only true means for the conquest and liberation of Palestine.

On account of its militant character and its anti-English disposition the NMO is forced, under constant persecutions by the English administration, to exercise its political activity and the military training of its members in Palestine in secret.

The NMO, whose terrorist activities began as early as the autumn of the year 1936, became, after the publication of the British White Papers, especially prominent in the summer of 1939 through successful intensification of its terroristic activity and sabotage of English properly. At that lime these activities, as well as daily secret radio broadcasts, were noticed and discussed by virtually the entire world press.

The NMO maintained independent political offices in Warsaw, Paris. London and New York until the beginning of the war.

The office in Warsaw was mainly concerned with the military organization and training of the national Zionist youth and was closely connected with the Jewish masseswho, especially in Poland, sustained and enthusiastically supported, in every manner, the fight of the NMO in Palestine. Two newspapers were published in Warsaw (The Deed and Liberated Jerusalem): these were organs of the NMO.

The office in Warsaw maintained close relations with the former Polish government and those military circles, who brought greatest sympathy and understanding towards the aims of the NMO. Thus, in the year 1939 selected groups of NMO members were sent from Palestine to Poland, where their military training was completed in barracks by Polish officers.

The negotiations, for the purpose of activating and concertizing their aid, took place between the NMO and the Polish government in Warsaw – the evidence of which can easily be found in the archives of the former Polish government – were terminated because of the beginning of the war. The NMO is closely related to the totalitarian movements of Europe in its ideology and structure. The fighting capacity of the NMO could never be paralyzed or seriously weakened, neither through strong defensive measures by the English administration and the Arabs, nor by those of the Jewish socialists.’

Lenni Brenner, The Iron Wall, Zed Books, London 1984, pp.195-197.

To Tarc

The fact that Husseini was an antisemit is clear. It may be that based on another POV he is also something else. in any case your rational for this edit [3] is wrong. We are not in a "win" Vs "Loose" situation. I have self revrted my edits on the subject few weeks ago giving others a chance to think about it instead of ingaging in edit war. I see that you prefer the edit-war. I will again let you self revert or add your POV but let's make a mistake: Husseinin was an antisemit - it is just a question of when and and how this will also be rfelcted in Wikipedia - not a question of "if". Zeq 12:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your fundamental problem is, put simply this. You are looking at Amin outside of his historical context. Rather as someone commenting on the old Manila world championship of boxing might describe only Joe Frazier, and ignore Muhammed Ali aka Cassius Clay. Amin was one of many Arabs opposed to what they regarded, legitimately, as the betrayal of a promise (MacMahon-Hussein correspondence 1915) and the sell-out of their land to foreigners (European Jews). He, like many other Arabs, fought against this encroachment, with riots, terrorism, diplomacy with Germany, anything at hand. In Zionism, many followers of Jabotinsky and Avraham Stern fought for the Zionist conquest of the land with riots (1929 Betar demonstrations at the Wall), terrorism, and diplomacy with Germany. Amin was one strong voice for some decades, as was Jabotinsky and those groups associated with revisionist Zionism.

When people point this out to you, you think they are supporting Amin (privately I think the rival clan leaders were smarter, and he was a fool). They aren't. They are pointing out simply that you have an obsession with fingering Amin as Nazi, as a weirdo acting without context, historical provocation, and, in so far as he was a leader, someone whose example infected and invalidated all Palestinian resistance to Zionism. For every Amin you can point out, there is a figure in Zionism with a track record as bad as his, and frequently, in that period, they were rivals. Not to see the obvious is evidence for a POV, the desire to paint the history of that times in terms of an heroic myth of innocent Jews fighting against dhimmi-slavers and antisemites to retake land stolen from them 2000 years ago. It was no

such thing.Nishidani 16:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, I have no arguments with your Or as I don't OR myself - I just bring sources. Zeq 18:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

PS, as I explained many times: "Amin supporters" are people outside wikipedia. He was a leader, people supported him, their POV is not represnted in the article. that is a shame. This has nothing to do with the views of wikipedia editors - I never check what view an editor has. Zeq 18:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no OR in what I stated. It is a gloss on the material I adduced, which forms a perfect parallel to the material you adduce. I bring sources, which, when their implications are not understood, I explain. p.s. look at the German Foreign Office's records for Amin and Bose Nov 1941 Nishidani 20:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Huseini was not a leader of the Palestinians or anyone else, the British wanted him to be nothing more than an advisor to a Sharia court, with no influence over anything they intended doing. He was not the leader of the Palestinians because Herbert Samuel wanted all such leadership strangled at birth. Samuel intended there to be a Zionist state and Husseini was to be powerless. It worked. PR^talk 21:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

He was a leader and you know it. EXcept that his leadership cause the Palestinians to align them self with nazi loosers and his unwillingness to compromise lead to the Nakba. but what you and I think is meanigless. Stick to sources. Zeq 09:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dalin's junk. A mess for Zeq or Armon to clean up

The text reads:-

'After his appointment, al-Husayni's propaganda, including sponsoring a new translation into Arabic of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, led to the 1929 Palestine riots, including the 1929 Hebron massacre and the 1929 Safed massacre.[6]

Noter 6 refers us to

n.6 =David G. Dalin, Hitler’s Mufti, First Things (August/September 2005)

The relevant passage in Dalin's account reads

His career as an anti-Semitic agitator and terrorist began on April 4, 1920, when he and his followers went on a murderous rampage, attacking Jews on the street and looting Jewish stores. He was subsequently convicted by a military tribunal of inciting the anti-Semitic violence that had resulted in the killing of five Jews and the wounding of 211 others.

Sadly, the British—recognizing his status among the Palestinians—disregarded his record and appointed him to the prestigious post of grand mufti of Jerusalem in 1922, which made him both the religious and political leader of the Palestinian Arabs. Only two months after his appointment, his propaganda, including a new translation into Arabic of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, precipitated a second anti-Jewish riot in Palestine. On August 23, 1929, al-Husseini led a massacre of sixty Jews in Hebron and another forty-five in Safad.

.

(i)If Husseini personally led the murderous rampage on April 4, 1920 the article we have drafted fails to note it. Dalin says the Mufti personally helped kill Jews and loot their stores.

(ii) The British made him grand mufti in 1922. Two months after that, his propaganda, Dalin says, precipitated an anti-Jewish riot.(1922)

(iii) Dalin says on August 23, 1929, Husseini led a massacre of sixty Jews in Hebron and another forty-five in Safed.

Therefore the text in the article, as I pointed out long ago, is a personal synthesis of whoever wrote it, and distorts Dalin, as Dalin distorts history.

In Hebron on Aug 23,1929 59 Jews were killed or died, not 60 (64-65 were direct victims if you count wounded who later died), and in Safed, not on Aug 23, but on Aug 29, 18 Jews were killed, not 40. So much for Dalin's credibility as a reliable source.

The 'synthesis' of Dalin in the text is as follows. Dalin says the Mufti's propaganda led to a riot in 1922. He then says that (7 years later) the Mufti led the massacre in Hebron (there is no such conclusion in either the Shaw Report or the Mandate Commission's report. To 'lead' in English in these contexts means to 'be at the head' of a physical assault, to be personally present). The text as it stands stitches these two separate conclusions together violating either WP:OR or making an invalid Original Synthesis, to read now as:-

'After his appointment, al-Husayni's propaganda, including sponsoring a new translation into Arabic of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, led to the 1929 Palestine riots, including the 1929 Hebron massacre and the 1929 Safed massacre.

Dalin says after his appointment Husayni's propaganda led to a 1922 riot. He does not say those two events led to the 1929 riots. He says, further down, that Husayni led the Hebron riot (which happens to be ambiguous, and untrue).

A hint. The simplest solution is to throw out Dalin who is an incompetent, third-rate historian, and get a better source, of which there are over a dozen in the bibliography. Nishidani 21:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

what does this has to do with me ? Zeq 09:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are the most active editor in here. I have noted this stupid text several times, and neither you, Beit Or, or Armon (who gave the present link to it) have budged to remove it, and its muddled POV Original Synthesis. If you agree it falsifies the record, is from a third-rate historical hack in a two-bit college, and shouldn't be in here, tell me. And I will remove it myself. I have consistently had the courtesy to at least notify you all about the sloppy character of much of this material, and the reply is silence. Silence in such instances usually means assent to the text others object to. Nishidani 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Armon is directly responsible for the mess. [4]

He defended his edit against my attempt to get the rubbish off page here:

22:28, 26 October 2007 Armon (Talk | contribs) (45,526 bytes) (→The Mufti's role in the 1929 Palestine riots - Don't muzzle the sources especailly Dalin. Don't go off topic in order to "jusify" his incitement.) (undo)

Note 'muzzling sources' translates into keeping his own Original Synthesis on page against an editor who detected both the unreliability of the source he adduced, and the mess he made of that source. Armon refused to budge, you have his email. So perhaps you could iron the matter out. Nishidani 10:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not as active here as I wish. hopefully I will have more time. Zeq 13:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, just let me know whether you think this highly original synthesis of what Dalin wrote, or is assumed to have written, is a just synthesis or not. If you agree that Dalin's remarks have been grossly distorted, then I will save you the bother by excising the text myself. Nishidani 13:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't need my presmission to edit this article. it is a free country. Zeq 14:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite true, but since you and several others revert collectively much of what I edit, and since you have asked often that changes to the page be vetted on this talk page beforehand, I am simply asking your opinion, as you requested, so that the edit I propose reflects consensus, and will not be subject to an edit war. This is also what good wiki editing asks for. So, are you agreed that the passage should be removed or not, on the several grounds I cited above? Nishidani 15:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I will, as always, evalute your edits after they are done. This is much simpler. Act acording to policy - that is what I do. It is a free country you can edit what you want . Zeq 20:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion. I have explained to Zeq the edit I propose. He reserves the right to express his judgement on that edit only when it is made, not before it is made. It is a free country certainly, to cancel edits that, as often on this page, are made with scruple and according to the best editorial pratices. You have a fine record in this. So at least I have obtained evidence that you ask that edits be discussed on the talk page before being posted (2) you refuse to make a call on those proposed edits as discussed on the talk page (3) you enjoy contradicting yourself. Nishidani 21:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

@ Nishidani, I suggest that you just make this well-documented edit.

@ Zeq, if you are not even willing to give your opinion on a proposal someone submits so politely to you, you have obviously forfeited any right to reject it later on. In your eagerness to link al-Husainy to Hitler you do not even bother to spell the name Hitler correctly (twice you included "Hitelr" in the article), which suggests that your lopsided political drive is a stronger motive than encyclopedical carefulness. Contrary to what you claimed, your reference to "Hitelr" in the lead is not in line with the version in the article so I will adjust it. Paul kuiper NL 00:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, I suggest that we do not keep indenting every response further and further. It makes reading only more difficult, and it is enough if replies are in turns indented and not indented.) Paul kuiper NL 00:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul, read Nashdani conclusion and you can see that as always, this is not about the article but another attempt by him/her to develop a personal argument with me. I decline to participate in such. He can say that " I refuse" and "that i contradict myself" and everything else. This is not a kindergarten you know. proving that I am wrong or right is not the issue here. There is no school teacher to judge who is the better student....(unless of course you would like to play this riole in a childish game that I refuse to take part in). Let me remind what I said many times: Focus on the article not on the editors....Zeq 04:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

PS I have not "fortified" any right to anything. It is a free country. He can edit and so can I. stop playing games and inventing rulles. Zeq 04:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

► It is not my fault if you do not understand the difference between forfeited and fortified, I can only suggest that you will attend a course in elementary English. But your poor English and incorrect spelling is not the major problem. You are obviously grossly violating the Wikipedia rules by your continuous effort to make this article a leaflet for your political propaganda. You are entitled to your fierce anti-Palestinian views, but you do not have the right to use Wikipedia for your propaganda.

Again you have inserted without stating any source the claim that al-H. asked Hitler (or, in your terms Hitelr) for "annihilation of the Jews" (even before Hitler made any decision on "annihilation of the Jews"). It is obvious that such a far-reaching claim cannot be included in this article without stating a reliable source. Wikipedia is not the childish game that you are trying to make of it, and it is not a tool for your political propaganda. Stop breaking the rules! Paul kuiper NL 19:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For the third time,Zeq is the passage

'After his appointment, al-Husayni's propaganda, including sponsoring a new translation into Arabic of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, led to the 1929 Palestine riots, including the 1929 Hebron massacre and the 1929 Safed massacre.=David G. Dalin, Hitler’s Mufti, First Things (August/September 2005) [6]

a passage which in no way represents the source it relies on, a personal and erroneous synthesis of Dalin, and therefore to be removed?

This is only a 'childish game' because you refuse to reply to another editor's legitimate request for your judgement on a passage you have consistently, with Armon, reverted to. Since you support the text, I have documented why it violates Wiki rules, and ask you to make a call on my analysis. If you don't make that call, then your refusal constitutes uncooperative behaviour. Wiki is not a free country in the sense that anyone can do as he likes. As in all free countries, the freedom exercised is circumscribed by quite precise rules, and in this case, one of the rules is that no one is 'free' to insistently restore a text that comes from an unreliable source, and that falsifies the source by an unwarranted personal synthesis. If you want that text to stay in there, tell me, and I, personally, will leave it there. If you think the text has been shown to be flawed, then tell me, and I will edit it out. To ask this is not to play games, except in the sense that games are played by rules, and I wish you to make explicit what rules are behind your judgement on this passage, Wiki rules or Rafferty's rules? Nishidani 09:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. OK when i made that edit I was attempting to summarize what I'd read in the Dalin article. I don't think that this:
Only two months after his appointment, his propaganda, including a new translation into Arabic of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, precipitated a second anti-Jewish riot in Palestine. On August 23, 1929, al-Husseini led a massacre of sixty Jews in Hebron and another forty-five in Safad.
...and my edit:
After his appointment, al-Husayni's propaganda, including sponsoring a new translation into Arabic of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, led to the 1929 Palestine riots, including the 1929 Hebron massacre and the 1929 Safed massacre
...constitutes WP:SYNTH because Dalin is stating that his propaganda "precipitated" (or led to) a "second anti-Jewish riot" and that it didn't stop there.
As for your objections that Dalin is unreliable, he may have made a mistake in his numbers or he may be using different sources -I don't know. I do know it's not our job to argue with the sources because another WP rule is "verifiability not truth". It was published in an academic journal, and we aren't using those numbers anyway. That being said, if you have sources which contradict Dalin's assessment of the Mufti's role in the riots, please quote or link them here and we'll discuss them. <<-armon->> 11:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Calm down? Cool as a cucumber. You mistake my tone. I am, in Zeq's analogy, a professional scholar with decades of experience, who finds himself facing rowdy historical illiteracy at the gan-y'ladim level. Rather than shout at the children, one does well to exercise a good deal of patience, and show a capacity to explain in simple detail what the kids, in their enthusiasm, fail to understand. I'm afraid you are totally unconvincing on WP:SYNTH, and your reply is what is known as tendentious 'prevarication'. You have conflated two passages with 7al years difference, using the words 'led' indiscriminately, apart from the fact that Dalin is an incompetent historian since just in this opening section he gets names, dates, details skewed, and teaches at a very insignificant college. You objected to Laqueur, Schechtman, Morris, Sykes, Brenner whose works are acclaimed or frequently cited, and chose to showcase an incompetent historian's hysterical piece of propaganda, written clearly from memory, as that was published on a minor web site. Note that Dalin has done, unlike the scholars I mentioned, no original research. His field of competence, outside of his rabbinical background, is on the Papacy's attitude to the Jews in WW2.

I don't need sources to contradict Dalin's remarks, since his own paper self-destructs. Technically, if you have some experience with academic writing, it is for an incompetent historian to prove his arguments, not for a competent historian to waste his time disproving odd-ball amateurs. Dalin provides no sources himself to document his assertions, and they are contained in a paragraph that brims with demonstrably false 'evidence'. You like it,it fits your preconceptions of Arab 'fanaticism', so you defend it. I simply note the fact that it is seamed with error, a barely reputable source, and that your use of this material constitutes illegitimate synthesis, in that you conflate two separate statements to forge a causal link that is not in the original text. Why? I presume because you wish to frame Husayni as a unique overpowering 'leader' in a massacre, something which the Mandatory Commission of 1930, and the Shaw Report do not say. They variously exculpate him, or as in the former, charge him with some responsibility, along with many other leaders, and the facts in both those reports which adduce Jewish responsibility for the riots of 1929 are conveniently suppressed. The reason the Mandatory Commission seems to have disagreed with the Shaw Report was that it held a brief for the Balfour Declaration, obliged Britain, which was backtracking quickly, to fulfil its obligations over Arab resistance, and thought Arabs a feudal mob of oriental fanatics, whose emergence from feudalism required the economic growth of Zionist investment to wake them out of their oriental slumber. Modern historians of the period do not share the Mandatory Commission's racial prejudices, and that is why they nuance the clash as one of two opposed interests, instead of blaming the Arabs, and the British, unilaterally.

I will continue to comment on this hasbara team effort, and will edit only when I find a competent number of serious editors in here, ready to give us a scrupulously NPOV account of al Husayni in the context of those decades, from his early participation in a wide Arabic nationalist defence of their territory against an imperial design on it, to his later infatuation with Nazism. I would suggest in the meantime that you all take some time out to read Yehoshua Porath's The Palestinian Arab National Movement: 1929-1939,. It gives you one non-comicbook version of the context in which al-Husayni moved, and, unlike Dalin, Porath has done original research into the period Nishidani 12:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, your comments repeatedly violate WP:SOAP and WP:NPA. It's unacceptable to accuse fellow editors of "rowdy historical illiteracy at the gan-y'ladim level". Comment on content, not editors. Nor is this talk page an appropriate place to discuss your theories on the British Mandate of Palestine. Again, comment on content. Beit Or 22:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That, plus the chest thumping about being "a professional scholar with decades of experience" lost me. Nobody can can confirm it, and nobody cares. You can't just assert your theories -you have to appeal to the sources, same as everybody else. Nishidani, you're rapidly heading into the TLDR basket. <<-armon->> 00:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I see a persuasive case made out that Dalin is an incompetent, third-rate historian, and we should not be using him. I don't see any effort being made to counter that view in any kind of scholarly fashion - and "Too long, didn't read" looks like insulting obstruction and a determination to shut down efforts to turn this into a good article. PR^talk 20:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish state ; annihilitation of the Jew

I promised 2 sources : here the second.

• The first one was Tom Segev : One Palestine, complete, applauded by all historians from Shapira (see who she is) to Morris.
• Laqueur, who is tradionnal historian and specialist about Zionist writes that even if the documents was ambiguous about that, everybody knew that Zionism planned to establish a Jewish state and that is what all arab nationalists fought.

Concerning the annihilation of the Jews, what to say ?
-> All this is very funny : may I suggest to the pro-israeli fanatic team to take care of the pro-palestinian fanatic team acting on the causes of the 1948 exodus or on allegations of racism about Zionism and leave people work on these articles ??? :-)))
Alithien 09:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• I reject your proposal and suggest you read this article text before the next time you change the lead section. Zeq 18:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer to the edit on 'state' is as follows. The Balfour Declaration, and its subsequent implementation within the framework of of the Sykes-Picot agreement under League of Nations Mandatory supervision, spoke of 'national home for the Jewish people' and not a state. The notion of statehood is, as far as I know, meticulously avoided in British papers and Mandatory documents for some decades. It is true that this was what Zionists thought would be the final shape of things. It is also true that they withheld explicitly using the term 'state' in negotiations with Britain over 1922, wary of the explosive implications in the use of that term publicly. In this they were opposed by Jabotinsky's revisionists who made no bones about the fact that the drive was for a fully constituted autonomous state, and not a 'national home'. The Arab nationalists were naturally opposed to both a state and a national home. But the article should reflect historical usage as evidenced by the Mandatory Power and the League of Nations Mandatory Commission, which, for example in 1930, explicitly dismissed the idea of a Jewish 'state' as a non-starter, and assigned that, in their view, misbegotten idea to a mere small school of revisionist Zionists. Regards Nishidani 10:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your objections but we go by the source: The balfour declration is clear and the Mufti's own words to the Nazis. Zeq 18:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, Zeq . You don't understand my objections. As you say 'we go by the sources' and the sources say 'a national home for the Jewish people'. They never say 'state'. Mind you, you are not exhausting me. I find this obtusity fascinating.Nishidani 21:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I will no longer respond to continued comments about me. This is the article we are supposed to talk about here. Zeq 05:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just thought you might like to know that to the casual reader, the difference between "national homeland for the Jewish people" and "Jewish state" is that one is eleven syllables and the other three. Not worth arguing about (to the casual reader). --Ravpapa (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Just thought you might like to know that proper articles are not written for casual readers, but to get the facts right. And the relevant fact is that the Balfour Document, and later clarifications (1922) do not speak of a 'state' but of a 'national home (not homeland) for the Jewish people' (meaning they were to be integrated as a nation into Palestine, where other nations dwelt). That was in turn recognized by the Mandatory authorities, who explicitly deny that the Mandate provided for a Jewish state (1930 Mandatory review of Shaw Report). Before stating one's opinions, one does well to read the relevant sources, since this comes up frequently, and only in posters who are not familiar with those documents.Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, sorry for my ignorance. No need to be huffy. You should probably not capitalize "national". --Ravpapa (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishadani: Do you have any souce that support that as of 1917 your claim: "meaning they were to be integrated as a nation into Palestine, where other nations dwelt" is correct ?. In any case by 1947 it became clear that the UN was speaking of a state. (see resloution 181 from 1947) Zeq (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It was repeatedly made clear by the British that the Balfour declaration was for a national home, not a state. The declaration specifically laid down that the natives must not be dispossessed. Only briefly in 1936 did it appear the British might choose a partition and an ethnic cleansing, and that position was never accepted by the British government. In 1920, 1930 and 1939 the British were convinced that the immigration going on was leading towards a catastrophe, and in 1939 they declared that immigration would have to stop. PR^talk 20:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have tried up to now to avoid commenting on the substance of the arguments here, thinking that perhaps you might be interested in a mediatory voice. But since that is clearly not to be the case, I feel free to comment on some of the views expressed. Zeq, I am afraid that in the matter of "national home", Nishidani is right. The framers of the Balfour Declaration certainly were not thinking about an independent Jewish state - just as they were not thinking about an independent Jordanian or Indian or Burmese state. This was the heyday of British colonialism - independent statehood was anathema to their entire way of thinking. Even 20 years later, when the empire was wracked by revolt around the world, talk of independence was considered heresy by the British establishment.

As for PR's comment that "the British were convinced that the immigration ... was leading to catastrophe", that seems a little extreme. After all, immigration of Jews to Palestine was British policy until 1930, and was certainly supported by factions in the FO up to Israeli independence. The British never spoke with one voice on this issue.

The point of my previous post - poorly made, I admit - is that this argument over the meaning of the Balfour declaration is irrelevant to the lead of the article. Of course the Mufti was opposed to a national Jewish home in Palestine. Of course he was opposed to a Jewish state. It isn't one or the other, it's both. So what difference does it make to the article? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ravpapa Thanks for your judicious comments. There is point however in making the distinction. One of the difficulties we are experiencing on this page regards reading back into the past the facts and ideas associated with later events, i.e. taking Amin's position in the 20s to be that of a Nazi ante litteram. The only way one can distinguish the two elements is to scrupulously adhere to the language used by various parties over the periods concerned. The Balfour declaration was ambiguous: that ambiguity once translated into actions that were taken to signify a possible state solution was cancelled by the British government in 1922 in consultation with the WZO. Though the WZO certainly thought over the long term that a state was in the making, it understood that this would place the British administration of Palestine into insuperable difficulties with the local majoritarian Arab population, and cause larger regional problems between the British colonial empire and Arab populations. The 1922 clarification removed that ambiguity, by specifying 'national home' and negating officially the idea that the British were sponsoring a state, something that they had denied to the Arabs after having promised them something of that kind throughout WW1 (Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom documents that betrayal). Within the Zionist movement, Jabotinsky, a far-more clear-sighted thinker, if a far less adept politician, well understood that a state was implicit in the Zionist project, as did Arab nationalists like al-Husayni. Betar worked for that state, and Arab nationalists attempted to sabotage it. The British and the WZO denied a state was in the works, and British policy was dictated by the necessity of affirming official neutrality with regard to the two parties in conflict. Thus, historically, statehood, also for the reasons you give, was denied as a policy aim, and this was accepted also by the League of Nations' Mandatory Commission. Later of course, as Jabotinsky foresaw, the ethnic basis for statehood would precipitate statehood by fe facto force of numbers, leading to partition. But to confuse the 'national home' with 'state' is to confuse the politics of 1917-1930s with the politics of the 1940s. To put 'state' where the documentary record explicitly speaks of an indefinite 'home' is to run in the face of the political history of the earlier period.Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but, Nishidani, the lead is not about the politics of the 1920's, nor is it about the politics of the 1940's. It is about the Mufti. In the 1920's he opposed the national home. In the 1940s he opposed the Jewish state. Perhaps change it to "opposed Jewish immigration to Palestine". But why waste good blood pressure points on an issue that is beside the point? So much to be upset about, so little time. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I assure you I have excellent blood pressure, and regard much of the attempts to manhandle, POV, vandalise, twist and politicize these pages as clumsy, clovenhanded and worth only a wry smile. I approach, albeit with vigour, these things with equanimity, as one of the hazards of the task of trying to be thoughtful in the collaborative effort of writing articles to quality standards. The lead paragraph in which the contested words occur runs as follows:-

In 1921, he succeeded to his father as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Like many other Arab leaders of his time period, al-Husayni was known for his anti-Zionism and fought against the establishment of the national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.

As you can see at a glance, the context is the 20s(the next paragraph opens up with the 30s and then 40s). I know it may look odd nowadays, but some generations ago people were trained to be careful about language use in historical contexts. Several centuries of ink have been spilt over Rashi's construction of Genesis 1:1 as a protasis. A few hours on minor wording in an ephemeral wiki article is, sub specie aeternitatis, not harmful, and the lesson, of being precise with language, and not just POV suspicions (as so many others flourish an expertise in) may serve larger purposes, or is that poiposes? regards Nishidani (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not see any source that supported nashdani claim that they were to be intergated to an independent palestinian state. I can agree that at first the British were not planning on any state but at the end agree to 2 states. This whole discussion becomes irelvant to the actual text in the article - which is about Huseeienin not the British - he surly objected to a state, to a homaland, to a national home etc.... Zeq (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if that is what Nishidani is actually saying - I'll have to let him speak for himself. However, it certainly looks like the British led the Arabs to think they were to get an independent state, just as they led the Jews to think they would get one. The Balfour declaration reads like a promise of statehood. "National home for the Jewish people" - what else could that mean? But it was a typical case of the British playing both ends against the middle. "There is no doubt that when the Balfour Declaration was made, most Jews believed that it meant that Palestine would soon become a Jewish National State." That's the Lord Chancellor writing to the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies in 1931 (CO 733/215/97050/9).

If Nishidani chooses to believe British promises to the Arabs, that's his business. But the Palestinians of the 1930s were smarter. "We have lost our faith in the British," said Mogannam Mogannam, of the Arab Executive, in 1931. "Nobody, not one soul in Arab Palestine and perhaps in all the Arab and Moslem worlds, believes now in England." (quoted in the newspaper "Falastin", 17/2/1931) --Ravpapa (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't choose to believe anything. It runs against my natural scepticism. I take the historical record, as established by the best authorities, as the state of the art of knowing the past. It is not unalterable, nor perfect, but the best guide a contemporary has to what happened. The British, for geostrategic reasons, first offered Arabs, then Jews, control of the land, found themselves under Mandate authority, with an insurrection in hand, and in 1922 agreed with the WZO to language which cancelled the ambiguity of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, because to speak of a Jewish state would have created huge administrative problems in Palestine. Most Jews thought a state was in the making, most Arabs did so also, and opposed it, since, naturally, they were being dispossessed of an autonomous political future. They Jews naturally did everything to push for a state, since that was their understanding of the Balfour Declaration. The conflicts that ensued were implicit from the outset, and we are still living with the consequences. History is not about justice, it is about power. Winners win out because of superior force and tactical intelligence, not because they have some obscure metaphysical principle for good on their side.

Zeq. Please read the original sequence of documents, readily available online, on all British policy papers and League of Nations' Mandatory Commission investigations. In your objections, you are objecting to what is written in those documents, not to me. I merely refer to them.

I did. The issue for this article are not the British and what they led the palestinians to believe. The issue here is what dod the Mufti wanted - based on what he did and what he said. That is what this article is about. So far I have not seen a single source that support Nishadani version. Zeq (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you rarely write intelligible English, and never understand what other editors write in that language, I naturally doubt you are familiar with any documentation more than a page long. That you haven't read any of the documents is well attested by your frequent edits which when challenged by documentary proof from the sources people like myself cite leaves you flabbergasted at what to most literate people is obvous, like the distinction between national home and state. The Mufti lived in an historical context, and your inability to understand history means you cannot evaluate objectively what he said or did in those contexts. That is why your edits here are mostly useless.Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems another attempt to discuss the article ended up in Nishadani discussing the editors of the article. btw, calling a fellow editor imbacil is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Surly you know what I refer too. It is just that I find it a waste of time to report you. Zeq (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone actually read the Mufti's book?

Is there an English or Hebrew translation? I can't read Arabic. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither can I, but I console myself that most people in here can't read English either. E.g. I've been watching this passage for some months.

'wrote articles for the first new newspaper to be established in Palestine, Suriyya al-Janubiyya (Southern Syria)'Nishidani (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you hinting here ? Is this something about the article (i.e. that palestine was never an independent state and considered part of Syria ?) or is it something about the editors of the article ? If it is about the editors - please spare us the details - we would much rather focus on the subject of the article. Zeq (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's simply about the ability to read English and correct mistakes. Once the obvious mistake is corrected, then the sentence can be rewritten to correct the factual error. One cannot focus on the subject of an article if one is incapable of understanding the simplest elements of prose style and indifferent to facts. Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)