Talk:Amin al-Husseini/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

Dalin

The text says Husayni sponsored a new translation of the Protocols in 1921. I know a Lebanese edition came out roughly at that time, not sponsored by Husayni. Checking the wiki page you get this for Arabic translations.

'In the 1920s, the Protocols occasionally appeared in the Arab polemics linking Zionism and Bolshevism. The first Arabic translations were made from the French by Arab Christians. The first translation was published in Raqib Sahyun, a periodical of the Roman Catholic community of Jerusalem, in 1926. Another translation made by an Arab Christian appeared in Cairo in 1927 or 1928, this time as a book. The first translation by an Arab Muslim was also published in Cairo, but only in 1951.[33]

Since Dalin's paper would score a C grade in any undergraduate course, if not indeed failed, you'd better start finding out where he got his idea about Husayni's sponsoring a new translation. May be true, of course. But Dalin is not a reliable source for the statement.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,
Dalin's book was not peer reviewed but is self published. It cannot be used to report facts (even lesse historical facts) but only analysis or minds and under special circumstances. Ceedjee (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Banking on Baghdad has documentation

Hope I am not creating more problems, but I just happened on this discussion reading just a few sentences of what seems to be a contentious set of exchanges. I have seen several books on the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem's relationship with the Nazis. Most of them are quite flawed and unsubstantiated. The one that seems to be completely vetted, peer-reviewed, accurate and loaded with documentation from archives, contemporaneous Nazi Arabic and English newspapers, diplomatic papers from both Arabic and English sources and so forth is "Banking on Baghdad," Chapters 16 and 17, which was featured on C-Span. I will not bother adding any text to the actual Wiki entry but anyone interested in the real verifiable facts might consult those two book chapters and the voluminous primary footnotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.28.34.95 (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Useful picture of Grand Mufti reviewing Waffen SS troops from a Nazi magazine cover at http://www.bankingonbaghdad.com/illustrations.php. You may have to dig down to the middle of the page to view it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.28.70.107 (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

All contributors agree that he had significant connections to the Nazis. It is relatively easy to get the facts on board in this section. What we disagree about is reading Amin's anti-Zionism retrospectively as an incipient form of 'anti-semitism' to be understood in the hindsight of his later desperate attempt to rally Germany assistance against both Britain and Zionism. Serious historians no longer accept this reading of the 20s and early 30s. As he said at that time, were it not for the Balfour agreement, he personally would have welcomed Jewish immigration into Palestine. Thanks for the extra references though. When back online I will read them through.Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I really read this: "Serious historians no longer accept this reading of the 20s and early 30s." I cannot fathom what it might mean or who would be the one deciding who is serious or not serious. But is that you? On the other hand, recruiting Waffen SS for wholesale murder I guess is somewhat more than a political statement.It was genocide and bloodthirst. Ditto for his diplomatic letters to send children to the Polish gas chambers rather than Palestine. But I am sure only those with enormous amounts of time on their hands could navigate through the many arguments, food fights and other diversions I see on this page. So I won't join the mess. I leave it for proper scholarship based on thoroughly vetted primary documentation to settle it. Not sure if that scholarship will ever find its way into this forum which seems riddled with personal agendas and unlimited arguments to disqualify any facts regardless of the source or depth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.28.45.163 (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Study the literature, and pontificate less about the toilers in the field. The distinction I made is between early post-war Zionist works, and recent historical work by Israeli scholars more attentive to a less partial(less unilaterally nationalist) reading of Amin, which means also fluency in Arabic sources. By all means, keep clear of the mess. No one is obliged to join the torture-chamber of wiki-editing. Some here are endeavouring to muck out the stable, rather than leave it befouled by scrappy dumps of ill-sorted material. If you have concrete suggestions, drop a note, and someone will chase the hint down to the sources.Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Just seeing this. Hello Nishidani. Fortunately we have the details of your Talk page and this post about "a torture-chamber" as guide to what is really going on here. Maybe you should take your voluminous knowledge and publish a paper with footnotes to educate us all, then others could cite it. That would be helpful. Let us know when it gets published as many would like to read it. Until then, perhaps some of the recent suggestions above might be of marginal usefulness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.28.83.217 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I found the Nishdani talk archive going back to 2006 most illuminating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.28.86.125 (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Indeed, the Nishdani Talk page and the archived sections are quite informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.28.151.189 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Goodness. I did scan bits of the Nishdani talk archive, and if prior comments have suggested that his pages are filled with argumentative, acrimonious and combative exchanges, I guess that seems correct. I would think people could provide information without someone belittling anyone who disagrees whether they quote an accomplished historian or author, a solid journal piece or newspaper, or anything else. Maybe Nishdani should allow others to step forward. I guess NPOV is in the eyes of the beholder, but somewhere along the way one must step back and say "this is settled fact" or this is "the font of human knowledge" without attacking it. Since Wikipedia does not go in for original research, ground-breaking revelations, or revisionism, we must rely on settled fact and consensus by the established experts and do so without permission from one contentious person or another. —Precedunsigned comment added by 63.28.57.14 (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you give the name of the experts ? Ceedjee (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is the best place for this info

In his speech at the 1942 opening of the Islamic Central Institute in Berlin al-Husayni accused the Jews of being the unending enemies of Muslims. He also accused them of being behind Communism and the supporters of wars that benefited only them. Reference -> Mallmann, Klaus-Michael and Martin Cuppers, "Elimination of the Jewish National Home in Palestine" in Holocaust Studies Vol. 35, p. 19-20

I think in the lead. other views are welcome Zeq (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

nowhere.
It is one of his numerous statement where he mixed anti-Zionism and anti-Zemitism. Maybe on wikiquote. Ceedjee (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Who is "he" in your original reserach above ? Zeq (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Zeq,
Amin al-Husseini (of course !)
It is true that I didn't give any source by where is the WP:OR ? This guy must have tired the entired world with his discourses against Zionism and Jews. Ceedjee (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Zionism is zionism and Jews are jews. If the quote is about the jews we sue jews. There are sometimes use today of the word "zionist" to mean "Jews" but here there is no such issue - the quote is about Jews. Maybe we should have a section about his antisemitism. Zeq (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Zeq,
I understand your point but that is unfortunately not correct.
Zionists mixed the names themselves : Jewish agency, Jewish army, Jewish state, etc.
Ceedjee (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you are confusing something which is who are exactly those "zionists" and why do you think that what you read in english has anything to do with How people who are not native english speakers define themself. I have never heard the expression "Jewish army". the expretion Jewish agency" was invented 100 years ago so what does this has to do with anything.
Bottom, line back to Mufti. He speaks about the jews and where should put his quote ? Zeq (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
From my point of view, not in the article but in wikiquote where all that the Mufti said could be gathered and there could be a link from here to wikiquite. Ceedjee (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Why ? we have in many article quotes of what people say. Actually in tis article we need more examples from the Mufti himself - especially if they are used as illustration to what the sources say about him. So I ask again - where in the article is the best place for this ? Zeq (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Why ? - Because that way, you will have absolutely all of them and there are many. Ceedjee (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not undersatnd your answer. In any case I see that you are not trying even to consider answering the question that was asked. The quote is sourced and therefore can be in the article. The question is : where is the best place for it ? Zeq (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Zeq,
It is already here. I think it is good there.
What I mean is that it would be a relevant information to gather *all the antisemitc speeches* of the Mufti. But not in this article (because of wp:undue). So the best place is in wikiquote with a link from this article (eg at the beginning of the section given just here above)...
Ceedjee (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Defense of the broad view of antisemitism section

This section mainly exists to fight the insidious position that al-Husayni was anti-Zionist, and not anti-Jewish. A study of his actual statements will not support such a view, and so we need to cite his actual statements.

In the citation I give the pages so you can go for yourself and see the fuller quote of what he said. I feel my summary gets at the essence of his statements, but if others feel there may be better ways to word them they are welcome to do so.Johnpacklambert (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I permit myself to move down here your comment that was in the middle of the talk page (while dated 10 april).
I reverted bec. al-Husseini cannot be tagged as antisemite as easily. Different pov's and references should be given. This is a hard topic that requires much work. Ceedjee (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Mallmann p.22

I have removed the following:-

The Hebron case should be considered since the Jewish community there was centuries old and had peacefully coexisted with their Muslim and Christian Arab neighbors for a long time. Yet the new form of anti-semitism spread by al-Husayni was able to destroy the peace of ages past. Reference -> Mallmann, Klaus-Michael and Martin Cuppers, "Elimination of the Jewish National Home in Palestine" in Holocaust Studies Vol. 35, p. 22

This is what is actually written on the source page from which this comment is added apropos Hebron p.22

In their frenzy, they beat up Jews praying at that holy site. A week later, on August 23, Arab rioting escalated in the city, and that same afternoon a rumor also reached Hebron that Jews were slaughtering Arabs in Jerusalem. Centuries of the small Jewish minority’s peaceful coexistence with the Arabs in Hebron could not halt the subsequent wave of anti-Jewish violence that erupted. On August 24, 1929, an all-out massacre took place in Hebron, and sixtyseven Jews were murdered.63

The bolded passages are editorial elaboration posing as a citation of sources. Secondly, no one has proven that al-Husayni had any connection to that particular massacre, its pertinence in extenso to his page has not been justified (a link to the 1929 Hebron massacre exists) and the technical literature has remarked that at Hebron, the Nashashibi clan was dominant, and they opposed al-Husayni. The sources for Mallmann and Cuppers' quote (a truism) are Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete. Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate (London: Little, Brown, 2000), pp. 314ff., 321–327; Lesch, Arab Politics in Palestine,pp. 209f. Cite these sources if you like (once you've checked them as linking al-Husayni with the Hebron massacre). Mallmann and Cuppers' paper is useful for the suggestion that al-Husayni may have had contacts with a secret programme to sweep through Palestine, and joing with German forces from the Caucasus to wipe out Jews in Palestine. It is not proper to cite this specific paper for a general point made by numerous sources on the massacre at Hebron, which is not their area of competence. Secondly, in writing a Wiki article, one should not write 'should be considered' , which is an editorial comment, a piece of advice by one editor to the reader.Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the words 'should be considered' should be removed. It would be better to bringa quote tying the Mufti to the massacre. We had such quotes in the past from the minority view to the British commsion which later around 1937 was accepted. Zeq (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Zeq. I appreciate that. Moral or even political responsibility is one thing. Whether he directed that massacre or not is another. If he did he'd have to have done it under the noses of the Nashashibi clan, his adversaries. That's the reason why I'm a bit puzzled. Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation

I have prepared a translation of what at present is footnote 42 (Mallmann and Cuppers), but would it be a violation of authorial rights to insert this?CWO (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Just add a note after stating : "free translation of "...". Ceedjee (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mufti's antisemitism

Warning to wikipedia

1)From wikipedia in french (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rouleau)Eric Rouleau was ambassador in Tunisia when Arafat was based in Tunis , this men take part of the arab politic of France he was a contact with the colonel Khadafi. => In his article he wrote that Phillip Matar(in his english books the mufti of jerusalem p 73) call im a moderate conservative, in reality Philip Matar i have wrote in his book that the mufti "was pleased by the final solution" http://aval31.free.fr/photosdiverses/73.jpg ! This lie is the object of a whole page in a openly pro-israelian website...what his purpose ? What the purpose of trying qualifing involvement of the big mufti ?

2) What is also the importance of Idith Zertal (also only known in France) when she wrote about a men who was the charismatic leader of the SS handschar that he wasnt antisemite. A men also involved with Himmler himself ? http://aval31.free.fr/photosdiverses/big/himmlerbig.jpg (picture dedicaced of himmler to the big mufti, meeting of the big mufti with Himmler. A men subject of the first book of Simon Wiesenthal (Grossmufti Grosssagent der Achse 1947)?

What's the clue of this writter and other member of wikipedia showing that the big mufti wasnt antisemitic ? Whats the purpose of a so long article dealing about antisemitism ?

Wikipedia discovery : the big mufti could be then the first men so deeply involve in the nazi system (only looking the pictures, movies about im, facts) without to be antisemite !

Wikieur

From the beginning of the Wikipedia entry: "It is often claimed his opposition to Zionism was grounded in anti-Semitism."

Yeah, and It is often claimed Hitler's actions were grounded in anti-Semitism.

And it is often claimed that the earth is round, and that 'A' is the first letter of English alphabet, and that 2+2=4

This is insanity. You don't need to quote someone to say that Hitler or Hajj Amin were antisemitic. This is too basic. All you need is to know what he did. It speaks for itself.

The statement I quoted is an insult to the intelligence of the Wikipedia readers. I will wait for someone to change it, but if it remains unchanged, I'll rewrite the entire opening, making his role in the Holocaust the first item. (76.167.72.139 (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC))

Read more extensively in the academic literature on Husseini, and you will slowly appreciate that historians now make a clear distinction between his early antizionism, and his later alliance with the Nazis. Texts must reflect the scholarly literature, not simplistic thumbnail impressions garnered from a partial reading of secondary and tertiary POV sources. On that most editors are agreed. Don't meddle with the text until you have read thoroughly the whole article, and its sources.Nishidani (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I think I have found the quote that was missing to solve this issue once for all.
In his last book, Benny Morris writes, without ambiguity, that al-Husseini was antisemite and he justifies this by some of his speeches.
With a former analysis stating the same from Elpeleg, with the one of Arendth given some months ago, and with the one given by Zeq some times ago from an article, I think we have enough reliable and scholarly sources.
There is also the recent quote that added/removed/added/removed from the article... We can nuance all this by the analysis of Idith Zertal who claims this pictures was exagerated and we will have a npov version.
I will make a suggestion here to add something concerning this polemic issue in the article.
Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Material

On the building on the antisemitic image of the Mufti

  • « The transference of the Holocaust situation on the Middle East reality (...) was done, before and during [Eichmann]'s trial, in two disctinctive ways: (...). The second means was systematic references - in the press, on the radio, and in political speeches - to the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin El-Husseini, his connections with the Nazi regime in general and with Eichmann and his office in particular. In those references he was depicted as a prominent designer of the Final Solution and a major Nazi criminal. (...)
    As for the building of the case against the Mufti of Jerusalem as a major Nazi criminal, the hammering started during the preparation for the trial. (...) Israeli papers (...) repeatedly stressed his ties with El-Husseini, "a fanatic Jew hater, who belongs among the biggest Nazi war criminals". (...) One Israeli newspaper subliminally suggested that the Nazi order for the mass murder of European Jewry was actually inspired by the Mufti. "Various certificates and documents found in archives in Europe after the Nazi defeat," said the paper, "have proven that El-Husseini, the most extreme leader the Israeli Arabs have ever had, was one of the most important collaborators of Adolf Eichmann.» (Idith Zertal, Israel's Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood, pp.100-103).
  • « ... »

On the antisemitic positions of the Mufti

  • « In any case, there is no doubt that Haj Amin's hatred was not limited to Zionism, but extended to Jews as such. His frequent, close contacts with leaders of the Nazi regime cannot have left Haj Amin any doubt as to the fate which awaited Jews whose emigration was prevented by his efforts.His many comments show that he was not only delighted that Jews were prevented from emigrating to Palestine, but was very pleased by Nazi's Final Solution ». (Conclusion of Involvment in the destriction of the Jews, The Grand Mufti, Zvi Elpeleg, p.72).
  • « He was deeply anti-Semitic. He later explained the Holocaust as owing to the Jews' sabotage of the German war effort in Wolrd War I and the millennia of Gentile anti-Semitism as due to the Jews' "character" : "One of the most prominent facets of the Jewish character is their exaggerated conceit and selfishness, rooted in their belief that they are the chosen people of God. There is no limit to their covetousness and they prevent others from enjoying the Good... They have no pity and are known for their hatred, rivalry and hardness, as Allah described them in the Qur'an. » (Benny Morris, 1948, pp.21-22).

Ceedjee (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand why you concentrate on his antisemitism. Husseini was engaged in a struggle "to the death" with a political movement of armed revolutionaries that was flooding his society. These people attacked the house of the Mufti (Huneidi, FO reference 71/5118 E 3580) and then had Husseini sentenced to a long term of imprisonment in a secret trial on (unknown) charges blaming him for the problems. They demanded and got the sacking of the mayor of Jerusalem. These very troublesome and unwanted arrivals in his society loudly proclaimed they were Jewish - and he hated them. To call the result antisemitic smacks of propaganda and a determination to ignore the real story. We present no evidence that he hated the Jews of Palestine before he was confronted by the immigrants - if we agree that antisemitism is so important to his story then why don't we try and explore its roots?
In fact, there must be a suspicion that any source that makes a big thing out of his antisemitism is itself steeped in racist hatred - and its frequent corrollary, historical fabrication. I'd be astonished if there weren't good sources that make the points I'm making - so why are they totally absent? Where's the case for the defence?
Looking at the current state of our article, the problem of distortion is starkly evident - for instance, in the lead we have "In 1941 al-Husayni met Adolf Hitler in Berlin and asked him to oppose, as part of the Arab struggle for independence, the establishment of a Jewish state". That's almost certainly *not* what he said and it's difficult to understand why we misquote him in order to twist his motives in this way.
I don't much care to edit this article because I don't like racist hatred and in particular I don't want to tangle with people who distort the evidence in order to scream "racist" at people they hate. Those who do edit this article owe the project a lot better than what they're doing. PRtalk 07:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not concentrate on his antisemitism. That is something to develop but not in the lead and rather at the end of the article. As I did. I just report WP:RS sources and relevant information as proven in this talk page.
Ceedjee (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Amin al-Husayni has been pictured by a virulent antisemite by traditional Israeli historiography. Reference -> see Moshe Perlman, Mufti of Jerusalem: The Story of Haj Amin el Husseini, 1947; Joseph Schechtman, The Mufti and the Fuehrer : the rise and fall of Haj Amin el-Husseini, 1965.

His recent biographies put rather forward his nationalism. References -> Eric Rouleau, Qui était le mufti de Jérusalem ? (Who was the Mufti of Jerusalem ?), Le Monde diplomatique, august 1994. Reference -> Nevertheless, Zvi Elpeleg, whereas rehabilitating him, concludes his chapter concerning the involvment of the Mufit in the extermination of the Jews in writing that "[i]n any case, there is no doubt that Haj Amin's hatred was not limited to Zionism, but extended to Jews as such. His frequent, close contacts with leaders of the Nazi regime cannot have left Haj Amin any doubt as to the fate which awaited Jews whose emigration was prevented by his efforts.His many comments show that he was not only delighted that Jews were prevented from emigrating to Palestine, but was very pleased by Nazi's Final Solution ». Reference -> Zvi Elpeleg, Conclusion of the chapter Involvment in the destruction of the Jews, The Grand Mufti, 1993, p.72 According to Benny Morris, "[the Mufti] was deeply anti-Semitic". He argues that the Mufti "explained the Holocaust as owing to the Jews' sabotage of the German war effort in World War I and [their] character : (...) their selfishness, rooted in their belief that they are the chosen people of God. Benny Morris, 1948, 2008, pp.21-22.

In a study dedicated to the role and the use of the Holocaust in the Israeli nationalist feeling, Idith Zertal takes a new look at the antisemitic picture of the Mufti. She considers that "in more correct proportions, [he should be pictured] as a fanatic nationalist-religeous Palestinian leader". Reference -> Idith Zertal, Israel's Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood, 2005, p.102. She also claims that "(...) the demonization of the Mufti serves to magnify the Arafatian threat" and that the "[picture of the Mufti as] one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry (...) has no (...) historical substantiation (...). Reference -> Idith Zertal, Israel's Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood, 2005, p.175.

Are there comments before I put this in the article ? Ceedjee (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

I checked the pages in the former Israeli Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem's book and Benvenisti cites no sources for the quotes attributed to Kook or to al-Husayni. The Kook cite is not quoted in full in the note and, in any case, al-Husayni's alleged interpretation of Kook's alleged statement does not seem unreasonable in the context of the time and place and Jewish attempts to gain control of the Wall, e.g. by Chaim Weizmann in 1919. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure to understand what you mean. Do you want to remove this quote ?
nb: You took high care in putting the alleged term in your sentence but maybe you forgot the most important : "(...) and alleged Jewish attempts to gain control of the Wall".
What does Benvenisti say exactly ? Ceedjee (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I put the Benvenisti/Kook material in there, so I'm to blame, if someone finds fault, or it is my responsibility. One can dispense with the 'alleged'. My self-ban will be lifted I June and will then explain if needed. But dear Ceedjee the same material, (also with a public declaration of Zionism's intent to take over the site by Ussishkin), can be found in Henry Laurens, La Question de Palestine, Fayard, Paris, 2002 tome 2 p.166, which confirms the point. Regards to both Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
??? There must be a misunderstanding... I didn't claim it was not right. DieWeisseRose did (or I assume he did bec. I am not sure to understand either).
nb: I don't have La Question de Palestine of Laurens :-)
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding, over 'alleged'. One source, Benvenisti, says Amin was familiar with Kook's remark. Many sources state that Jewish offers, and pressure to buy the wall were repeated over that decaded. The article in this latter regard simply cites Arab claims and Jewish denials from the relevant British and mandatory reports and investigations in 1930. Documents there were written for political ends, with an eye to the potential reactions of both parties. Later historical research has amply demonstrated that several bids were made to buy the wall, and that these were known to the public, Arabic and otherwise. The problem therefore, is, how to we put this into the text without suffering from boring assaults from editors who might prefer to Peel-Hope Simpson-LNations versions (as a better 'NPOV' balancing act) to what our historical experts now say was the case? The Arab charge was, in short, not unfounded, or based on mere rumour. Nishidani (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, I referred to the statements attributed to Kook and al-Husayni as "alleged" because the only source I know of for them is Benvenisti and he does not cite any sources for anything in his book. As for "Jewish attempts to gain control of the Wall," of course, alleged could be used there too but I did not use it because I think it is far better documented in WP than the remarks of Benvenisti based upon quotes attr. to Kook and al-Husayni. You asked what Benvenisti says and my answer is, that on this particular matter, not much other than what already appears in the article text. The phrase "concrete political plot" is a direct quote from Benvenisti and the rest of the sentence in the WP article text is a very close paraphrase of Benvenisti. You ask, "Do you want to remove this quote." I'm not sure but I am more inclined to add something to the effect that Benvenisti cite no sources. Benvenisti offers no evidence beyond his bare assertation that al-Husayni was responding, in particular, to Kook's alleged statement. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi DieWeisseRose,
Thank you. I understand what you mean.
I think that if Benevenisti is the only one who makes the link between Kook's (alleged) statement and Husseini's (alleged) andswer, given he is not an historien and whereas he is a wp:rs, we should find a better source or to remove this.
I will try to find something. I think there is something about that in Tom Segev, One Palestine. Complete.
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tagged since Dec 07

Are there any outstanding issues to be covered here? This page has quieted down as of late. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind it if you took the tag down. --GHcool (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Most relevant information is in the article. It still needs quite a lot of work on it, with repetitiveness, and a tradition of POV-battles leaving it in a rather messy state and unbalanced. The basic problem was a confusion caused by one editor who read his later alliance with Nazis retroactively back into his anti-Zionism. The text still shows this. Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I share Nishidani's analysis concerning the current state of the article. We would need a lot of work to improve this and it will be a huge work with a high risk of starting a battle...
With the 1948 Palestinian exodus family and all the ones related to (alleged) massacres, there are difficult to deal with...
Would there be another flag to underline the "problematic" of the topic ? Ceedjee (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Mufti's antisemitism

Nishidani, It would be prudent if you could provide sources critical of Wolfgang G. Schwanitz's view of the mufti, but please don't change the article text until you can procure these. 132.66.84.167 (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to provide sources on Wolfgang Schwanitz. His article is cited, and I made no criticism here of this article. Your revert was wrong because you accused me falsely of removing a source. I retained the sources that were in the text before my edit. Your objection therefore was to my abbreviation, an elimination of irrelevant details about Schwanitz's background, as far as I can see.Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what Rouleau says.

GHcool. The text has slabs of German in it and you don't protest. You challenge however a citation to an author writing in French, because readers can't control it. This is nincoherent. The French text says exactly what note 74 (which is summarised in lead) says (though bthere is an error in the prose of the text at the relevant point, to be corrected. If editors want to check Rouleau's statement, they can ask me or Ceedjee or any one else who wishes to control its veracity to verify and translate the relevant parts. Here is the French text.

Haj Amin, pour Zvi Elpeleg, fut dans les années 20 et 30 le premier des « anti-impérialistes » de la région puisqu’il combattit sans relâche la Grande-Bretagne, puissance mandataire en Palestine, et prit la tête du soulèvement populaire (1936-1939) dont le principal objectif était de conquérir l’indépendance du peuple palestinien. Tel n’est pas l’avis de Philip Matar, qui brosse du mufti de Jérusalem le portrait d’un conservateur « modéré », dont la « collaboration » était hautement appréciée par les Britanniques avant qu’il ne soit contraint de se ranger (tardivement) dans le camp du mouvement révolutionnaire. CEPENDANT, les convergences ne manquent pas dans les appréciations des deux auteurs. Ils condamnent tout autant l’un que l’autre l’alliance conclue entre Hitler et Haj Amin mais innocentent ce dernier de tout crime de guerre. Signe des temps, Philip Matar rejoint Zvi Elpeleg pour estimer que la politique dite du « tout ou rien » pratiquée par Haj Amin a porté préjudice à la cause qu’il défendait. Aucun des deux ne pense toutefois que les erreurs qu’il a commises ont modifié le cours de l’histoire. L’Etat d’Israël aurait en tout cas vu le jour en raison des puissants soutiens internationaux dont bénéficiaient les sionistes, explique Philip Matar, tandis que Zvi Elpeleg affirme que la création d’un Etat palestinien était exclue, compte tenu de l’opposition de la plupart des pays arabes à une telle entité souveraine. Ce qui l’amène à déclarer à ce propos : « Ma conclusion fondamentale est que les Israéliens et les Palestiniens sont potentiellement des alliés naturels : nos deux Etats pourront coexister côte à côte. » C’est surtout dans l’appréciation globale de l’ancien mufti de Jérusalem et de son action que nos deux historiens s’opposent. Médiocre et velléitaire pour le Palestinien, Haj Amin est, pour l’Israélien, un homme « hors du commun », « comparable à Haïm Weizmann, David Ben Gourion, ou même à Theodor Herzl ». Ancien gouverneur militaire à Gaza et en Cisjordanie, qui passait autrefois pour un « faucon », Zvi Elpeleg témoigne de l’évolution des esprits en Israël, où son livre a reçu le meilleur des accueils dans les médias.

Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was Ceedjee who added the material [1]. Imad marie (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Imad if you check the Schwanitz article you will see the precise Arabic passage quoted from al-Husayni's memoirs. I noted down some time ago, in examining Schwanitz's material, a note which read that Husayni told Himmler he wished to send the Jews back to their country of origin, and Himmler said they would not be accepted in Germany, but I can't find this in any of my downloaded pages. Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nicosia cite

I read this long ago, and only have a few sparse notes. I restored GHcool's use of it for the citation required at Dar es-Islam but now find I cannot access the article. It needs to be checked and, if it does not support the text, eliminated, since I note GHcool had second thoughts about it after introducing it.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I think this sentence gives a "fair" summarizes of the material I added in the section concerning Mufti and antisemitism :

"Historians debate to what extent his fierce opposition to Zionism was grounded in nationalism and anti-Semitism."
  • Katz and Pearlman consider he was anti-semite
  • Elpeleg and Mattar that he was mainly nationalist while the first do not deny he was aware of the Shoah tragedy and the consequences of his own action on this.
  • In his last book, Morris also argues he was anti-semite (but do not deny nationalism fight)
  • Zertal thinks he was more a fanatic than an antisemite and that this is exagerated for political reasons

This different point of view are summarized by the Frecnh jouranlist Rouleaux but based only on Elpeleg and Mattar's works. I think we have a good list of wp:rs sources to conclude there is a debate to see why he was so virulently anti-Zionist. Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The only point I would challenge is 'and', since it tends to telescope or conflate into an atemporal unity the distinct phases of his anti-Zionism. He was decidedly and fiercely anti-zionist, as were most men of his class and background, from the late 1910s to 1930s. One of the things that pushed him to the antisemitic paranoid reading of events was the fact that agreements made with local British authorities in Palestine were, after some weeks, overthrown in London, and the newspapers of the day spoke of lobbying by the WZO and other groups with considerable throw-weight in British circles. The formal antisemitic, in the Western sense, elements emerge far more clearly with his decision to throw himself on the side of the Nazis in WW2. and as it stands suggests there was an antisemitic strain in his early antiZionism. This is, as far as I know, not proven. The only way out of this is to write 'and/or'. We must bear in mind that the travailled history of this page owes much to a POV attempt to get at Palestinian resistance to Zionism, wholly natural, as intrinsically 'antisemitic' and not nationalist, in order by using the good evidence for the later Husayni's pro-Nazi connections retroactively to interpret his original, representativelty Palestinian rejection of the Balfour declaration, as antisemitic, and then read his heritage in the Palestinian resistance, via the PLO, as conegnitally antisemitic. All such traces of such a game-plan will have to be elided, as it was a blatant attempt tomisinterpret the facts in order to push a perverted reading of the PLO.Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree for the and/or. To be honnest. I wanted to suggest to write ... or ... or both but I found this too complex and useless. The nuance will not be understood by the readers.
I would like to nuance something. In the Israeli perception of matter, Mufti's motivation was already antisemitism far before Arafat and PLO (see BG's and Golda Meir discourses in 1947 ; I have also in mind a "cartoon" published in NYT : "Not like Dachau - Is it, Herr Mufti ?".
According to Tom Segev, One Palestine. Complete, Palestinians even educated was antisemite. Like most British, even some pro-Zionists. I understand his analys as claiming "antisemitism was a normal feeling at the time" and that it should not be read by us as we read antisemitism today. Nevertheless, it is obvious that for Jews (and consequently Israelis), such a nuance is not satisfying.
As another exemple, even Ilan Pappé, in his book of 1992, writes that all arab leaders were antisemite, except Abdallah.
My mind is that anti-Zionist soon created a anti-Semitism feeling in the Palestinian Arabs. Both feelings mixed and grew together as soon as the 1920 Jerusalem riots. And Jews/Zionists mainly perceived the antisemite threat, which is quite logical from their point of view (they were Jews AND if they were Zionist it was to escape antisemitism).
Ceedjee (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
On the first point we are agree. On the second, the difference is one of nuance. I never said by the way that Mufti was not antisemitic before Arafat. I said that his explicit antisemitism during the war was used in early post 1948 writing to brand the anti-Zionist movement as Nazi-linked, and that the key role played by a figure like Husayni in the earlier resistance to Zionism was used to create links via him to later exponents of the same tradition, such as Arafat and the PLO. Now there is a long tradition is tension and hostility with Jews in the Arab world, just as there was with Christians. But there is nothing like the odium theologicum applied through centuries to lead to the systematic legislated violence we find in Christendom. There is a cosiderable literature also in Jewish writing of contempt and hatred for Christians and Arabs, but not for that reason do we invent a category like Jewish anti-Arabism. Jews qua Zionists, both after 1918 and after 1945/1948 were understandably disposed to think of all opposition to the creation of a Jewish homeland as anti-semitic (just as the Arabs had good reason to think that, over the century, there has been a consistent contempt indeed hatred for them in Western geostrategy). Petliura alone in the late stages of WW1 killed some 60,000 Jews, the Palestinian riots of 1920 against Zionism killed a handful of Jews. The Holocaust killed over 5 million Jews, whereas the 800,000 to 1,000,000 Jews in Arab lands, during WW2 and the aftermath for a decades, were almost untouched by that virulent odium that impelled mass slaughter. That Zionists saw the two (Usshikhin in 1919-1920) and everybody in post 1945 conflated the Eurocentric hatred of Jews with Arab hostility to the lost of Palestine, involving as it did violence and war., is on record. But to brand what was a standard movement by an indigenous people to the loss of their land as 'anti-semitic' in the Western sense is a grievous error. Too many other factors, not present in classic antisemitism, were present. Antisemitism is in Europe a majoritarian sentiment of hate towards a small host community, a deep fantasy unconnected with Jews, a pathology of paranoid dimensions with attendant readiness to smear, spurn, express contempt for anyone who may be Jewish. Many analyses point out that it thrived independent of realities. The Arabs sentiments were not simply a fantasy of a non-existent threat: they were reactions to a real historical tragedy for them. One may note that Zionist perceptions commingle anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. To leave the impression that anti-Zionism was intrinsically anti-Semitic, an embattled objection to dispossession as equivalent to a racial hatred for one's dispossessor is highly misleading.Nishidani (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I have the same view on this issue.
Ceedjee (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
To simplify, not only in my experience (which is substantial with antisemites) but in the literature, an antisemite is someone who hates Jews, individually and as a group, even without ever coming into contact with them. I don't know how many times I have had to correct people for saying 'maledetto ebreo' (damned Jew) to refer to some businessman who has tricked them, whether he be Christian, Protestant or Jewish. The hatred precedes the experience. It is to be distinguished from the universal tendency to discriminate against outsiders or those who are different. There is something very peculiar about antisemitism as a psychological and social pathology in Western history, and I bridle at attempts to use the term loosely.Nishidani (talk) 07:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
ok. Ceedjee (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The evidence both for his antisemitism and German/Nazi contacts should be reorganized from the chaotic repetitive blobs (organized by source) to allow a clear event by event, utterance by utterance, account of his war years with the Axis powers. Something like this</(BR>
(1)Testimonies at Nuremberg and arguments he was a key figure in Holocaust programme, down to Arendt and others
Then an ordered list of the main evidence =
(2)Husayni's role in Farhun-Nazi uprising in Iraq
(3) Flight to Italy and Germany
(4)Encounter with Italian fascists and German Nazis, Hitler, Himmler
(5) Chronological list of occasions where he made utterances, or intervened to stop Jews from being sent in swaps to Palestine.
(6(Chronological list of strategies involving plans to enlist Nazi help in attacking Jews in Palestine (3 of them).
(7)Organisation of Bosnian brigades
(8) Postwar attempts to have him put on trial for war crimes
Nishidani (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This structure is excellent. Ceedjee (talk) 07:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Good. This will involve a fair bit of editing, so I suggest we create a subsection here and experiment how to do it, before actually posting anything substantial on the article page. No hurry though: it's a big job, and requires care, input and discussion.Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For whoever is interested, I opened a thread about including al-Husayni's picture in Antisemitism here. Imad marie (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amin_al-Husseini/Archive_8&oldid=686948285"