Talk:Amin al-Husseini/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

footnotes

I removed the missing footnotes banner, they are present 91.178.80.176 (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if we can focus on the disputes regarding this article

Now that most of the discussion has been archived, this space looks pretty peaceful. I am wondering if we can make a list of the points of dispute. This is what I remember:

1. The lead: should it say "National home blablabla" or "Jewish state"?
2. The first sentence of the section 1929 Palestine riots', specifically the explicit causal connection: "... al-Husayni's propaganda ... led to the 1929 Palestine riots, ..."
3. Evaluations of the Mufti's role in the 1929 riots, and specifically the position and validity of the Shaw commission.

Are there other specific areas of dispute that I have missed?

It is my impression that Nishidani has misgivings about the overall tenor of the article, specifically that it leaves the reader with a sense that the Mufti was and remains the hero of the Palestinian movement, the "Father of Palestinian Nationalism" (I am quoting myself from a previous post); and that this sense is incorrect and tends to taint the entire Palestinian movement with the stigma of Nazism. Nishidani, please confirm or correct.

Issues of overall tenor are hard to address, but if we can resolve all the textual issues, we might be on the way to removing the POV tag from the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, they are some of the salient points, and we can dispose of them rapidly if common sense and fidelity to standard methods prevail. You can add that a 'new newspaper' is not a particularly intelligent phrase, and that (contentwise) the passage containing it suggests the first Palestinian newspaper was published in 1919, when in fact the first Arabic paper, based in Haifa, came out in 1908. Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of dubiously sourced info

The statement "al-Husayni is alleged to have said, 'I declare a holy war, my Muslim brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!'" was sourced to Leonard Davis and M. Decter, published by the Near East Report. Near East Report is the publishing organ of AIPAC ("America's Pro-Israel Lobby"). Davis and Decter's book has virtually no documentation and no bibliography. It is a handbook for Israel lobbyists and activists, not a scholarly work. Midge Decter is a journalist, editorialist, and grand dame of America's neo-conservative movement. Leonard Davis (these days, he goes by Lenny Ben-David) was AIPAC's Director of Information until he accepted a post as Israel's Chief of Mission to the United States.

In summary, stop wasting our time with this crap, Armon. <eleland/talkedits> 23:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The information was restored with the addition of two references. The authors are an ultra-right talk-radio host and Internet columnist, and the esteemed author of "The complete idiot's guide to Jewish history and culture". That is closer to a willful insult than an attempt to address the serious lack of credibility attached to these allegations.

A simple question: when and where did al-Husayni say this? Where was it originally published or broadcast? The random "Masada 2000"-type websites which repeat it (often in variant phrasings) seem to agree it was in a Berlin propaganda broadcast, but are divided between 1941, 1942, and 1944. (Some date it to 1947 in Jerusalem, oddly.) The fact that nobody seems to know the details, or agree on the wording, points to an historical fabrication. <eleland/talkedits> 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because information does not come through the official, elitist, anti-Jewish, "nothing is more evil than colonialism", leftist establishment does not mean it is not true. al-Husayni was a virulent anti-semite and a hatter of Jews. These facts you can not deny.Johnpacklambert (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

4 points: 1) The sentence clearly says "alleged". 2) Arguing with the sources like this is WP:OR based on a genetic fallacy 3) WP:V "verifiability not truth" and finally 4) Despite all that, if the quote was in fact "out of character" in any way, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. The guy was a Nazi collaborator and he said the same things in his Berlin radio broadcasts. <<-armon->> 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

1) The sentence clearly says "alleged", without making it clear that the allegations are made by unreliable partisans. 2a) Evaluation of source reliability and notoriety is a central task of Wikipedia editors and does not constitute original research. 2b) Your link to genetic fallacy is confusing at best. Please explain yourself more specifically. 3) Your link to WP:V is confusing, since you are quoting the pithy catch-phrase without explaining how it applies, or acknowledging that:

• All quotations and any challenged material should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
• Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions should be avoided.
• Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding historical events or politically charged issues.

4) We all know he was an anti-Semitic fascist, but the statement "he said the same things in his Berlin radio broadcasts" is proof by assertion. If credible sources quote him saying the same thing, give us the credible sources and you can shut us up. <eleland/talkedits> 04:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Look eleland, the quote is cited and verifiable in that sense. Your theories about the sources' motivations and/or bias and especially your theory that it a fabrication is irrelevant unless you have evidence to back it up. <<-armon->> (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that antisemite and fascist are the right terms. Particularly the second one.
Idith Zertal, in Israel's Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood considers he would be better painted as a nationalist-religious fanatic.
NB: concerning quotes about the Mufti alleged antisemitism (or extremist views), many have been gathered here : [1].
Ceedjee 08:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, "anti-Semite" (or "antisemite") seems to be a reasonable conclusion. At the very least, he was willing to exploit anti-Semitic sentiments for his own purposes - both Arab antisemitism and Nazi antisemitism. If there's active debate on the subject we should summarize those opinions, with attribution, rather than trying to settle it ourselves. "Fascist" I'm not qualified to say. Maybe it's a blind spot but "fascist", "national-religious fanatic", etc all seem to blur together for me. Then again I have a hard time distinguishing the policies of some European national-conservative parties from fascism, so what do I know. <eleland/talkedits> 23:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Only on WP could we have an argument that a Nazi might not be an antisemite (rolling eyes) <<-armon->> (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. And we are on wp. That is the problem.

As far as I know, all we could say is that he is pictured as an antisemite but I never found reliable sources (ie historians) who claim he was antisemite while eg Tom Segev in One Palestine, Complete tag several British soldiers as antisemite. Ceedjee (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But he wasn't a Nazi, at least not in the sense of being an NSDAP member. He was an ally of the Nazis who recruited Bosniak fighters against Communist partisans and attempted to secure German & Italian support for Arab revolution against Britain. That's roughly the same moral calculus that the Western powers made in allying with Stalin. One has to consider the "My enemy's enemy is my friend" factor here before just shouting "He was a Nazi!", which is proof by assertion. Maybe he was a Nazi and maybe he wasn't, but we aren't going to learn the truth by privileging wartime propaganda from the Haganah over scholarly sources.

As far as I can see, nobody has yet addressed the specific issues, namely the apparently serious flaws in the sourcing of the "Murder them all" quote, the "Kill the Jews wherever you find them" quote, and the "poison powder" claim. <eleland/talkedits> 20:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

al-Husayni did request to join the Nazi party. He was closer to being a Nazi than any neo-Nazi ever has been.Johnpacklambert (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Is "M. Decter" supposed to be the famous Midge Decter? AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

More dubious sources

Well, the heading says "dubious", but that's a euphemism. The source is in fact blatantly unreliable. Moshe Pearlman, who "has directed Israel's information services and advised Premier David Ben-Gurion on public affairs" [2], writing about the Palestinians' leader during the immediate run-up to the Jewish-Arab civil war in Palestine, doesn't get to put words in Husayni's mouth, thank you very much. <eleland/talkedits> 04:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• here is a quote from a latter the Mufti wrote to the Germans asking them to elminate the "Jewish national homeland in Palestine" [3] Zeq 07:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

But that's a completely different quote. It isn't even an anti-Jewish quote. It's anti-Zionism. It's something a mainstream rabbi could have said in 1939! <eleland/talkedits> 07:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, I think you are confusing "reliable" with "biased". No one argues that Pearlman is a biased source. But, while many dispute the conclusions Pearlman reaches, I don't think anyone has challenged the facts that appear in his analysis. WP:Reliable Sources defines a reliable source as:

• The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
• Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are preferred.
• Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it.

Pearlman is all of those things. His books have undergone rigourous review by the scholarly community, and are often quoted in other scholarly works. Indeed, some of his books are considered important source material for any study of some of the subjects he dealt with.

If our article had quoted Pearlman in stating a conclusion about the Mufti - for example, stating that the Mufti was an antisemite - I would certainly agree that the quote would have to be accredited in the text, and not only in the footnote. However, adding the accreditation here suggests that you doubt that the Mufti actually said what he is quoted as saying. Such a challenge of fact seems unwarranted and would have to be supported by some indication that Pearlman fabricated facts that appear in his books - something I would be interested in seeing if you have such evidence.

Here is another example: Edward Said had a clear and openly stated bias about Middle Eastern affairs. But no one questions the quality of his scholarship, and to bracket statements of fact from Said's writings with comments such as you have added would be inappropriate. --Ravpapa 07:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are valid arguments, but I will need objective evidence about Pearlman's work before I can accept them. At least in the English language, he seems to be fairly obscure, and his work Mufti of Jerusalem not widely cited since the 1950s. He was a journalist and author but not a trained scholar. Phillip Mattar, Executive Director of the (pro-PLO, but respected) Institute for Palestine Studies, states that "The biographers of the Mufti ... often told us more about themselves than about him. They were written by Jewish nationalists, such as Moshe Pearlman ... who attempted to villify him and discredit his movement ... The accounts were so polemical that the historical al-Husayni and the movement he led were scarcely discernible."

In summary, all we verifiably know about him is that he was a Haganah spokesman and a public relations adviser to Ben Gurion. Please support your assertions. <eleland/talkedits> 07:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your response suggests that you are unfamiliar with Pearlman's work. He wrote at least 20 books on various subject concerning the Middle East, including one of the most important biographies of Ben Gurion. He served in senior roles in the Israeli government for 40 years, and is therefore not only an important chronicler of events, but also a first-hand source of primary importance. His works are cited frequently in scholarly journals (a quick Google search will find reviews of his work in journals published by Oxford University, University of Chicago, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, but there are surely more). His work is cited in two doctoral theses I am now reading on the Mufti.

None of the references I have read have cast aspersions on the validity of his data, though some do disagree with his point of view.

If the quote in question were out of character for the Mufti, if it were the only existing instance of a documented antisemitic statement, I would perhaps agree with your reticence to accept it as fact. But, as you well know, the Mufti himself made no secret of his views, and the quote in question is just one of many well-documented quotes on the subject.

I would like to take this issue a step further. Your edits appear to some extent to be an attempt to excise evidence of the Mufti's radicalism from the article. Nishidani at one point argued that the article (I am paraphrasing, Nishidani, please correct me if I am wrong) appeared to him to be an attempt to blacken the entire Palestinian national movement by presenting the Mufti as (a) a viscious antisemite and Nazi, and (b) the undisputed founder and leader of Palestinian nationalism. The first is true, but the second is not. Throughout his career, the Mufti, while the most visible of the Palestinian leaders, was always the subject of bitter opposition, and never enjoyed unchallenged popular support.

If we wish to avoid the impression that the article is slandering Palestinian nationalism, the way to do this is not by obfuscating the Mufti's positions, but by showing that they were not representative of the Palestinian national movement. The article makes almost no mention of this - for example, of the opposition of the Nashashibis, of Kawkji, of Abdullah. There are many Palestinian nationalists who have rejected the Mufti's pro-Nazi and antisemitic views, even while admiring the Mufti's dedication to his people.

In summary, the way to make the article balanced and informative is not to remove facts which might be offensive, but to add material which puts the life of the Mufti into a wider and more representative context. --Ravpapa 11:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely with Ravpapa. <<-armon->> (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not familiar with Lieutenant Colonel Pearlman's work, which is why I asked for evidence. I am of course aware that he wrote a large number of books, the best known being his biographical retrospective on Ben Gurion and his book on the trial of Eichmann. I have done the Google searches. I didn't find the information you're referencing. I found plenty of criticisms of Pearlman. He is often classed alongside the notorious fabricator Joseph Schechtman as someone who aimed to discredit al-Husayni. Even more sympathetic profilers agree that he tended toward rhetoric and appeal to emotion and wore his Zionist sympathies on his sleeve. In any case, he is one source, from 60 years ago in the midst of a civil war against Husayni's side. He states that Husayni made this statement in a Berlin Radio propaganda broadcast. Since the British and Americans would have been recording all such broadcasts for intelligence purposes, why is Pearlman the only person who seems to know about it?

One more interesting thing I found in my Google searches: The question of a very similar alleged Mufti quote from Pearlman was discussed in an ArbCom case, where one user identified it as "the core of the dispute". The users who kept trying to insert it were "cautioned to avoid using propagandistic sources". Hmmm... <eleland/talkedits> 12:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I understand from this post that you consider the claim that the Mufti was antisemitic and a Nazi to be a fabrication? --Ravpapa 14:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

He was made the equivalent of General in SS. How could he not be a Nazi?:::

I can't speak to what you may or may not understand, but it's not relevant to this discussion, which is about the reliability of a specific source for a specific quotation. <eleland/talkedits> 14:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In Israel's Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood , Idith Zertal explain how the Mufti has been exagerately pictured as antisemite. So, the answer to your question (Ravpapa) is indeed that this image has been, at least partly, fabricated. Ceedjee (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, but the real issue here is whether we can use a Haganah spokesman's propaganda tract from 1947, or an AIPAC's propaganda tract (they literally distribute it by the caseload), to put words in Husayni's mouth. If these quotes are documented and verifiable, there should be better sources available. <eleland/talkedits> 20:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My mind on this issue is that wp can introduce the controversy around Mufti's antisemitism. In that context and only in that one, could all these quotes be given.

So :

• if we jsut want to state that the Mufti was antisemite : no.
• if we develop the controversy around the image of the Mufti in Israeli historiography : yes.

Ceedjee (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should stick to discussing the mufti as viewed by sources. If there are sources - academic sources - who show his antisemitism we should have that. He aligned with the Nazis and his whole life worked against the jews - this is enouigh to call someone an antisemite. here are some academic data on the subject: http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/studies/vol35/Mallmann-Cuppers2.pdf

The view that Israel distorts the mufti image is that of a small group - not worthy of an enclopedic mention, most of the are here : http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n4p11_Okeefe.htmlZeq (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)

Why are we getting into this kind of a discussion? I raised objections to two specific quotes from two specific sources. I still haven't gotten any halfway convincing or even relevant answers. People are talking now about the broad sweep of al-Husayni's life and views. What about the two quotes and the sources? <eleland/talkedits> 04:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee: I am familiar with Idit Zertal's book, and I personally tend to agree with it. The Mufti is portrayed in Pearlman's book as a virulent antisemite. Pearlman, for example, pretty much ignores all the quotes where the Mufti explicitly distinguishes between Zionists, who come to evict him from his country, and all Jews.

But Zertal's book is a challenge to Pearlman's conclusions and premise, not to the quality of his scholarship. Zertal does not contend that Pearlman fabricates quotes, only that he presents only one side of the story.

There are two sides to this story. Both sides have been presented by reliable scholars who disagree. That is legitimate. The contention that Pearlman is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards for reliability is entirely an ad hominem argument, and not based on serious academic challenges to the quality of his scholarship. Nobody here has even seriously questioned whether the Mufti actually said the things he is quoted as saying - they have deleted the quote only because they do not like the political position or history of the person who wrote the book. The rejection of Pearlman as a reliable source because of his involvement in Israeli politics is like rejecting Churchill's account of World War II because he was prime minister at the time.

The rather bizarre consequence of the excision of quotes by Eliland and others is that this article on the Mufti - who spent his life publishing his views in speech and in writing - contains almost no quotes from the man himself. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

£Zertal refers to the israeli historiography and even sociology as a whole.

she just points out how the Mufti has been exagerately (and falsely) pictured as antisemite.

Among those who did so is Pearlman (she doen't cite or quote him).

But his collaboration to this process is the reason why Pearlman is not a reliable source to talk about the Mufti, given he collaborated on the building of this false image.

This is not a controversy between Pearlman and Zertal. This is a study of Zertal on Pearlman and his peers. So this is exactly what is needed for wp to prevent the use of Pearlman as a source. A scholar study taht states he is not reliable. To use this, we should find recent scholars who still defend this analysis of the ferously antisemite Mufti. (I wrote scholars).

So we should only use more recent analysis made out of this difficult context of the difficult making of Israel at the beginning of its existence.

Mattar and Elpeleg also talks about Mufti's fanatism and use of political violence that could be assimilated to antisemitism. Ceedjee (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you and I are saying pretty much the same thing. We agree that the Mufti's portrayal as an antisemite was exaggerated. We agree that Pearlman's conclusions and premises are one-sided. Pearlman supports this premise by choosing to present certain evidence (quotes of the Mufti saying nasty antisemitic things) and to ignore other evidence (quotes of the Mufti stating policies and positions which clearly distinguish between Jews and Zionists).

What that means to me is that we should not rely solely on Pearlman as an analysis of the Mufti's character. We should look to other sources - for example, Taggar's book (The Mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine Arab Politics 1930 - 1937) - to balance the picture.

But we are not talking here about presenting Pearlman's conclusions and premises. We are talking about citing a specific quote. No one that I know of has accused Pearlman of falsifying information to make his point. No one has accused him of being unreliable in his presentation of facts.

Moreover, if you accept Zertal's attack, why do you exempt scholars who wrote after her from unreliability? Plenty of current scholars (for example, Mallman and Cuppers) continue to contend that the Mufti was antisemitic. Should we discount their work also?

Controversy is part of life in academia. You don't just axe an entire branch of scholarship just because someone writes a book with a different slant. By Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source, which I cited above in this thread, there is no question that Pearlman is a reliable source. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Zertal does not attack anybody. Why do you picture her as doing so ? She is not Pappé and if you didn't find people who attacked Pearlman, I never read anything but positive reception concerning Zertal work (in comparison eg with Finkelstein's one on the same matter...)

That is a false symetry.

There is a second false symetry. I agree that controversy is part of life in academia.

But here, we don't have a controversy. We have a worked made in the past that is analysed to be false by current scholar with nobody -as far as I know- criticizing this. I mean : what Zertal writes about Mufti picturing is not controversed. With your parallelism we would have to use Galileo or even Ptolemee thesis in the astronomy articles.

If there is a controversy, it can be with more recent scholars. I don't have anything against this. On the contrary, that is a good solution.

For this subjet, I still think that Pearlman can be quoted but only as an illustration of Zerthal thesis about the way the Mufti is pictured. The article of Cuppers can be used to illustrate that even today, some scholars still go on considering the Mufti was a virulent antisemite or unless we can find a majority of current scholars -aware of Zertal work- stating that the Mufti was an virulent antisemite.

I don't state these doesn't exist but I didn't find them after 2 years being careful to take care to note anything precise on that subject.

Who are the scholar who today in 2008 would state that the Mufti was a virulent antisemite ?

Ceedjee (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

allied with hitler

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php here is a picture of him together with adolf hitler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.250.171.134 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Very dubiously sourced chemical warfare claim

All the details here about chemical attacks on Tel Aviv's water supply seem to track back to Bar-Zohar and Haber's The Quest for the Red Prince. Our citation is to Benyamin Korn at the David Wyman institute, who just tells us that "The details of their mission were first revealed in the 1983 book", then explains what Red Prince says. Wyman himself, as well as Wyman institute director Rafael Medoff seem to repeat the claim wherever they can (such as here in the organ of Israel's extremist religious settler community.) Alan Dershowitz actually claims that the wells were poisoned successfully and that the squad was under Husayni's direct command (maybe he parachuted in?). Yisrael Medad, a settler spokesman from the "Menachem Begin Heritage Center" said in a Jerusalem Post op-ed that Husyani "encouraged Arab agents to parachute into Mandate territories to poison the water." Etc, etc. Usually there's no source cited, but when a source is given, it's always Red Prince or Wyman repeating from Red Prince.

Here's how Korn describes Red Prince's authors:

Michael Bar-Zohar, a biographer of Ben-Gurion and Labor Party Knesset Member, and Eitan Haber, a journalist who became Yitzhak Rabin's closest aide and speechwriter when Rabin became prime minister.

Here's some of what Michael Rubner, a Professor Emeritus, of International Relations at Michigan State University said about Red Prince:

Because the book does not contain footnotes and lacks a bibliography, the reader is left to wonder about the identity and veracity of the sources on which this account is based.

This exceptional claim is supported by sources which are not only not exceptional, but not even reliable. I've noticed that it's also mentioned on (Collaboration during World War II#Arabs, Chemical warfare#World War II, and Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict#WW2 and prior to formation of State of Israel. Is somebody on a campaign here? <eleland/talkedits> 20:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. you. Ceedjee (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Before continuing with Personal attacks let's focus on what acdemic good sources tell us about him. Melman Kuppers describe him as anti-semite. This is enough for me. They are historians. Zeq (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A Google search on "Melman Kuppers" provides no results whatsoever. There is a distinct danger of the encyclopedia being contaminated by references that are worthless. And that's even before the well-known smear by which critics of Israel are labelled anti-semitic with no evidence whatsoever. PR^talk 22:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This kind of pithy "non-responsive response" seems to indicate that you have no valid case for keeping the information besides the fact that you don't like al-Husayni. Or Palestinians generally? <eleland/talkedits> 19:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Geez, guys, let's try to keep on the subject here! We are talking about this chemical warfare claim. Keep the comments on that, hey?

This story, as repeated here and on David Wyman's website is really pretty unbelievable. Sabotage squads parachuted into Palestine? and landing in Jericho? Carrying a white powder that was later tested in a laboratory? Flitting about in parachutes was not done a lot in the Middle East in those days, as far as I know. Tactically, it wouldn't make a lot of sense - coming in by boat would be a lot simpler. Poisoning of water supplies was not, to the best of my knowledge, a terrorist method used in WWII. In fact, I don't think it has been used successfully anywhere in the world ever (I ignore cases of throwing dead animals into open wells). As far as I know, there were no forensic laboratories in Palestine in 1942, and precious little of any other kind of laboratory either.

The whole story, and the way it is told on Wyman's website, has the ring of fiction about it.

I think we should look for a contemporary or academic source for this story (maybe local newspapers? Davar? Palestine Post?) before using it. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The source is Bar Zohar who doesn't give his own indeed. And ?

It will stay in the article until somebody proves it is false as per wp:rules or until a specialist on the topic warns us it is not true.

You guys who doen't know anything about the topic but only come to direct topics in function of the current palestinian-israeli conflict should be kept far away from wikipedia.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

NB I just noticed that user:Ian Pitchford just corrected the article and didn't remove this information. That is enough for me. The case is close. Ceedjee (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

First, would you mind making an extra effort to write in clear English? I don't understand what your first sentence is meant to say.

Secondly, would you mind making an extra effort not to impugn the motives and insult the intelligence of your fellow editors?

Thirdly, simply rephrasing an obscure claim as an "allegation" or an "according to X, ..." may make it verifiably true, but it doesn't avoid the problem of putting WP:UNDUE weight on a possibly malicious claim from a quite obscure source. There are plenty of conspiracy theories about, say, Arik Sharon, but we don't stuff his biography full of them, either in "Sharon is an alien" form or in "According to Bob Crackpot, Sharon is an alien" form. If it's a significant claim relative to al-Husayni's life as a whole we can include it, even if it's false, but we need information about its significance. There is a lot of below-the-radar-screen chatter on blogs and partisan websites, and it should stay below the radar. <eleland/talkedits> 17:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the details but the basic story is generally held to be true. I understand the British intelligence report on the interrogation of two members of the sabotage team appears in The Arab War Effort: A Documented Account, New York, 1947, pp. 43-46. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Korn seems to think that "the details were first revealed" in 1983. Anyways I hope somebody has access to that source so we can see what it says. I still don't think that Red Prince filtered second-hand through Korn is a good enough source for a claim like this, especially when some of the details seem outlandish on first glance. This claim appears to be fairly obscure and not much discussed in the scholarly literature, although I have found it repeated in a number of partisan sources (Dershowitz, Washington Times, etc). It may be notable enough to mention but, at the same time, if historians don't take it seriously, we should not appear to take it seriously either. I'm just asking for verification that the basic story really is generally held to be true - not to mention verification that the Mufti had anything whatsoever to do with it. <eleland/talkedits> 17:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And it has been answered Bar Zohar is a reliable source. Ceedjee (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you persist in this? I've already pointed out that Bar Zohar's work was specifically criticized by academics "Because the book does not contain footnotes and lacks a bibliography, the reader is left to wonder about the identity and veracity of the sources on which this account is based," while you're just shouting "NUH-UH". This is not wikiality, we really do use policies and have discussion rather than just playing ostrich. <eleland/talkedits> 18:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A scholar criticized a book of Bar Zohar because he didn't give his sources but he didn't write what Bar Zohar stated was false.

change - the - tone - you - are - writing - to - me.

change your tone ! Ceedjee (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Medoff's paper - already cited - can be used as the source for this. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Medoff's letter to The Journal of Israeli History (published as "communications" rather than a full article) was in 1996; Medoff's colleague at the Wyman Institute states that "The details of their mission were first revealed in the 1983 book 'The Quest for the Red Prince'", and the name "Fayiz Bey Idrissi" given in Red Prince does not appear in any source that I can find except Red Prince, Korn's web posting, and a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors. The original source is Red Prince and it's unreliable. <eleland/talkedits> 19:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Medoff's contribution is a fully referenced paper on pages 317-333 of The Journal of Israeli History. I have it in front of me. Medoff cites the 1947 reprint of the Britsh intelligence report as his source. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I was going off the table of contents available at the journal's website, which seemed to label it as "communications." Does he say substantially the same thing as what we already have (esp. wrt the Mufti's role)? <eleland/talkedits> 19:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

1920

Mufti was sentenced to 10 years emprisonment after Nebi Musa riots. But I cannot find what he did exactly. (There are many references to what Aref al-Aref and Musa Qassem Husseini did) but what did the Mufti ? Ceedjee (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Palestine Police Force referred to these events as the "Jabotinsky riots"! --Ian Pitchford (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure ? Isn't something different that would have taken place 1 year earlier [4] ? Ceedjee (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you have requested the quote, here is one: "While a teacher in the Rashidiya school in Jerusalem, Haj Amin had incited the crowds during the Nabi Musa riots of 1920..." (Howard Sachar A History of Israel..., p. 170). Beit Or 13:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Jabotinsky was sentenced to 15 years for his role in organising Zionist demonstrations before Nebi Musa and for organising an armed militia. Both Zionists and Palestinian nationialists were trying to provoke incidents to their own advantage. --Ian Pitchford (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Off topic, Ian. Beit Or 14:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ian just gives more information. Nothing more. Ceedjee (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Beit Or.
I didn't really asked a quote but more information in fact.
Never mind. Let's keep this that way in the article. Ceedjee (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

According to E. Elat (Haj Amin el Husseini, Ex Mufti of Jerusalem (Tel Aviv 1968)), Hussayni was convicted by a secret military court of violation of paragraphs 32, 57, and 63 of the Ottoman code - all of which have to do with incitement to riot. Proceedings of the hearings - which were held with Hussayni himself in absentia - were never published.

Sir Robert Storrs, then Military Governor of Jerusalem, wrote, "The immediate fomenter of the Arab excesses had been one Haj Amin al Husseini... like most agitators, having incited the man in the street to violence and probable punishment, he fled." (Storrs, Orientations London 1937 p 388, cited in Taggar, The Mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine Arab Politics 1930 - 1937 (Garland Publishing, 1986)).

Hussayni at the time was active in the Nadi al Arabi, an early nationalist organization, which British officials felt was instrumental in inciting the violence. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much Ravpapa ! :-)

Ceedjee (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You've neglected to mention that Sir Robert Ronald Storrs was a puppet of the immigrants (who, at this stage, were still only some 10% of the population).

The Palin Report of 1920 (apparently suppressed because of Zionist Commission objections) p.32 tells how the Mayor of Jerusalem, Musa Kazim Pasha al-Husseini, had been present at a demonstration in March 1920. There is no evidence of what he acually did (much like the secret conviction of Husayni, in fact), but "the Zionists strongly resented his action, with the result that a letter was sent to him directly, signed by Mr David Yellin, head of the Zionist Commission in Palestine, practically dismissing him from his post". Subsequently al-Husseini was dismissed "without inquiry by Colonel Storrs, the Military Governor of Jerusalem" which "had a profound effect on his co-religionists, definitely confirming the conviction they had already formed from other evidence that the Civil Administration was the mere puppet of the Zionist Organization." Later, Storrs defended the sacking of the mayor to the new Zionist High Commissioner Herbert Samuel, saying that the Mayoralty of Jerusalem "is a two years office"; Storrs had appointed the ex-mayor in January 1918 and "every consideration had been accorded him but there had never been any question of retaining him over the statutory period". Storrs Papers, Pembroke College, Cambridge, Box no. III/2, Jerusalem 1920-1. (Cited Huneidi, "A Broken Trust", 2001).

Storrs being a puppet was unusual, because most of the rest of the military were profoundly irritated by the Zionists. eg Major General Bols, the last of the three military administrators, wrote (amongst much else) "that the Jewish idea of fair treatment implied treatment which was fair to the Jews, but not necessarily to the other party, and that his own authority and that of every department of his administration 'was impinged upon by the Zionist Commission'".[FO 371/5119 E 5237, 25 May 1920.] This state of affairs could not continue "without grave danger to the public peace" and without being detrimental to his administration. The Zionists were "bent on committing the temporary Military Administration to a partialist policy before the issue of the Mandate". It was "impossible to please partisans who officially claim nothing more than a National Home but in reality will be satisfied with nothing less than a Jewish State". "It is no use stating to the Moslem and Christian elements of the population that our declaration as to the maintenance of the 'status quo' made on our entry into Jerusalem, has been observed. Facts witness otherwise, the introduction of the Hebrew tongue as an official language, the setting up of a Jewish judicature, the whole fabric of Government of the Zionist Commission of which they are well aware, the special privileges given as regards travelling and movement to members of the Zionist Commission, has firmly and absolutely convinced the non-Jewish elements of our partiality[FO 371/5119 E 5237, 25 May 1920.]

Some of the above may belong in this article - but given the way it's already been hi-jacked - and in particular, the failure of admins to defend scholarship, I can't see the point of a bad tempered battle. I'm already muzzled and facing an indefinite block for attempting to put good information into the project. PR^talk 12:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Isnt it Ronald Storrs instead of Robert Storrs" ?

Tom Segev doesn't picture him the same way as you do.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it is Roland Storrs, that's my transcription error. Storrs was a second-tier figure compared with the two main targets of the Zionist Commission, Bols and Allenby. As Military Governor of Jerusalem, Storrs was in charge where the trouble broke out. He seems to have taken instructions from Weizmann and to have been a personal friend of the Russian revolutionary Jabotinsky. The latter, unlike Husayni, appears to have been actually guilty of something he knew to be illegal. If we're looking to improve the encyclopedia, you must tell me what Segev says about him. PR^talk 16:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ronald, not Roland !

Segev pictures him as a pro-British man who had sympathy for Zionism but less for Zionists leaving in Palestine and particularly the Zionist Commission (and so Weizmann).

He also says he had some admiration for Jabotinsky but that didn't prevent him from forbiding that he organised an armed militia.

Ceedjee (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Palin report and government papers of the time make it appear that Jabotinsky was embarked on a Bolshevik-style revolutionary process, and Ronald Storrs (sorry) had allowed him to build and train a small army, with guns. Storrs refused his goons official status for the first 2 days of the riots, then gave it to them. This attitude in quite stark contrast to the rest of the British military, which (at least once he'd been convicted) wanted Jabotinsky locked up for a very long time. Did Segev really accuse him of being pro-British? That would be a surprise! You must admit that dismissing the Arab mayor of Jerusalem, apparently at the behest of the immigrants (with no evidence against him that we know of) is quite breathtakingly partisan. PR^talk 00:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)