Talk:Amin al-Husseini/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Amin al-Husseini. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Adding of non relevant data.

Recent edit include editions such as this - which has nothing to do with the suebject of this article:

"several members of which were themselves feeling out the Nazis in Beirut about a possible collaboration between the Jewish underground and Germany to throw the British out of Palestine"

I again point out to PR and others that while you may want to bring facts which according to your OR contrdaict sources you need to bring relevant source and/or sources that contradict the relavent sources already in the article.

Let me explain it specifically:

If a source sais Husseini is a nazi colaborator the option you have are:

bring a source that sais that "he was not a nazi colaborator"
there is no number 2

To add data that said that members of a Jewish organization were also nazi colaborator is very welcome - butin the article about that group - not here. I hope that is clear. I understand how much discomfort the Mufti to some but what can we do: He is regarded is hero by some (you should add that to the article) but he also did things which today look very bad. There is really no point trying to hide them or show that "others are also bad...". Zeq 12:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You are abusing WP:Undue Weight all over this page, because while no one disputes the Nazi connection, and it ought to have some weight, it cannot constitute half of the article, no more than the fact that the Stern Gang's members, many of whom militated with the larger Irgun, men such as Shamir, who rose to be Prime Minister, need have their wiki biographies cluttered up noisily with the fact that, at one point, that fringe group endeavoured to woo Nazi assistance, on the eve of the Holocaust, so that a joint Jewish-Nazi military collaboration might overthrow the British in Palestine. On the Yitzhak Shamir page, this fact has the weight due to it. A line or two. What you appear to be trying to do is smear by association, confusing Amin Husseyni's trafficking with the Nazis, while out of power with the natural resistance among Palestinians to having their native land sold out from under their feet. The resentment and riots were sociologically inevitable, as many Jewish leaders are on record as attesting. Their land was to be given to a foreign community, by a third party. That is not to condone the violence that flared up, but your attempt to tar the Palestinians with the Nazi brush, via the figure of Husseini, and give the impression that indigenous resistance to an imperially-sanctioned takeover of their land was little more than antisemitic or Nazism, is sleazy.Nishidani 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep out focus. This is the Husseini article - lets discuss Husseieni.

For the Stern-gand, Shamir - there are other articles which are unrelated to what we do here.

Can you re-edit your comment to the relevant issues to this article (and btw, always WP:AGF - I don't "smear" or "abuse" - I edit according to policy. Please appologize on these accusations)) Zeq 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Will you please stop it with the apology demands? AGF is not a shield that needs to be ducked under at each and every turn; learn to just shrug some things off and focus on the issues at hand. Nishidani was making an analogy, point out how other articles deal with people with controversial pasts and issues. The point is that al-Husseini's life and history are not 100% defined by charges of anti-semitism/zionism or of contacts with Nazis. There has to be a balance, and you continuously trying to put all of this stuff in is upsetting that undue weight balance. Tarc 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for focusing on Husseieni in your comment. I 100% agree with you. We need to represent his life as they were and as WP:RS sources describe him and do it in an NPOV manner (present both sides) maybe you can add the data how he is viwed as a hero by many ? Zeq 16:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq careful! You have now insinuated twice that those who contest your desire to monopolize the writing of this page are in fact trying to support Husseini, the Nazi. The fact that you are prepossessed by the desire to make a grotesque figure even more grotesque does not mean that those who would rein in your exuberant discursive elephantiasis on the Nazi-Palestine connection view him, contrariwise as a hero. They simply dislike pages mauled by incompetent monomania. In the meantime, I would suggest we begin to boil down to a précis-paraphrase the passages from white papers et al cited in extenso. That is pure padding, and boring to boot.Nishidani 17:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I made no such claim - all I suggested is that the POV of Mufti supporters will be added to the article. I did not say anything about any editor. Please appologize for making a false claim on me or support it with facts. the rest of your note is above my level of unerstanding. On the other hand you have removed sourced info - why ? Zeq 18:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your characterization of others as "Mufti supporters" needs to cease. Now. Tarc 18:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarc, I did not charterized any wikiepdia editor as "mufti supporter" . There are those(not wkipedia editors) who supported what he was trying to do and there are those (not wkipedia editotrs) who see him as a hero of Arab Freedom. It is only fair that their POV will be presented in this article. This man was an important leader - surly many saw him in positive light (during his life time and after) their views must be present. That is NPOV. As for your "need to cease now" - I suggest you stop giving orders around here. Please be polite with other editors. Zeq 18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps as your bad grammar indicates, you do not understand what your words in English mean. In writing, in the midst of a dispute with other editors objecting to your unilateral manner here, you remarked: 'I understand how much discomfort the Mufti to some but what can we do'. Corrected by supplying the verb this sentence lacks, it means, unambiguously, in context, that your work detailing the Mufti's Nazi connections causes 'discomfort' to some (implicitly 'in here'). Get your grammatical act together, and these accusations, if unintentional, will disappear. Until then, you are on the record as asserting that others in here are 'discomforted' by the evidence you present, and thus support a writing cleansed of this otherwise well-attested nexus between Al Husseini and Nazism.Nishidani 18:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there is great discomfort on this talk page that goes both ways - it is dealing with this subject (a Mufti which was reagrded as hero and turn out to be Nazi supporter) that cause discomfort (for me as well) as for my english i would agree that this: "rein in your exuberant discursive elephantiasis " is above my grade but I will look it up later when I have more time.Zeq 18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The discomfort is with your editing, not with the subject matter. Israel regards several known terrorists, who had deep connections with Fascism (Jabotinsky), and slighter contacts with Nazis (Avraham Stern), as national heroes. Shamir was directly responsible for killing Lord Moyne and Bernadotte, Begin had a hand in the attempt to assassinate Konrad Adenauer (actually his reasons for that act are quite understandable, he wanted the German reparations to go to the victims and not to the goverment of Israel). Many rabbis dealt with the Nazis, sending poorer Jews and Jewish communists off to the crematoria, where Jewish inmate slang called the victims who were condemned to the 'bakery' because unable to work anymore, 'Moslems', all this in exchange for their own and their family and friends' lives. Both became PM, one received the Nobel Prize for Peace. Stern was honoured with a memorial day, attended by senior government and military figures every year. Netanyahu, Livni, Olmert, to name but a few, all hail from an milieu connected with Irgun terrorism. So, just as this kind of information does not invalidate Jewish claims to a national home, neither does Amin Husseini's fanaticism, admired as it was by many Palestinians and Arabs who knew little of the Holocaust (had they that intention, as opposed to rhetoric, why is it that, compared to Europe, no Holocaust occurred in Arab countries?), in any way invalidate the Palestinians' vigorous opposition to what struck them as an expropriation of their homeland by foreigners. Your inability to understand this, and the monocular attention to this figure and connection as if he represented the smoking gun to prove a connivance between Palestinian indigenous claims to nationhood and Nazism, document the powerful POV governing yours edits. You lack proportion and equanimity Nishidani 19:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I find your accusations of what Rabbies did in the holocaust irelevent and highly insulting. You have no idea what people went through so don't judge them. It seems that your sources of information on the subject of the holocaust is how can I put it mildly - somewhat lacking. All in all, your contribution ehre is cerating an environment that is way past the wikipedia spirit and may in fact be against ikipedia policy by making comments which are insulting to other users. No rabbi called any one 'Moslems' as a ephitet like you try to claim - where did you got that idea. can you prove what you are arguing above. You know what I don't care where you got it from - it is irelevant - we are not editing an artyicle about Stern or about any Rabbi. personal note: I disagree completly with the political tradtion that stern represent and there are also many rbbis I disagree with - all this is irelevant as well. Focus on the subject of this article. Zeq 19:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You write:'can you prove what you are arguing above(?)'

Of course, and the fact that you are unaware of this is proof you read too much on an obscure mufti idiot, and not enough on the history of the Holocaust, or Zionist follies. See Raul Hilberg, Primo Levi, and Lenni Brenner, just for starters. I won't give you the page numbers, because people who want that information ought to earn it, and people who might abuse it, should not have their antisemitism buttressed by facile access to someone's hard-earned notes. Nishidani 20:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

what do you mean by "someone's hard-earned notes" ? I asked you to prove a claim you make and you are avoiding it ? why ? Zeq 20:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I claimed 'Moslem' was the word in Nazis concentration camps for people selected, from their exhaustion, for the next cremation in the 'bakery'. You doubt it? 'Era comune a tutti i Lager il termine Muselmann, 'mussulmano', attribuito al prigioniero irreversibilmente esausto, estenuato, prossimo alla morte.' Primo Levi, I sommersi e i salvati, in Primo Levi Opere, vol.1, Einaudi, 1987 p.729. As for the rest, it's well known, and hardly needs my files to document. But if you want, read Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews(1961) or the revised edition, even better.Nishidani 20:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this what you refer to as "someone's hard-earned notes" - i.e. are those your notes ? Why was it so hard to share them ? (I don't speak Italian but I will look for translation) or maybe you would make it easy for me and point me to one ?Zeq 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You missed the point. Levi's books on the camps count among the masterpieces of world literature, and I would translate, but prefer that you read the man, in English or Hebrew. He was one of the great spirits of the age, and rewards every reader, because he can look the obscenity of horror in the face, without raising his voice, or clotting his prose with emotive language for rhetorical effect, and that is the most effective way to unhinge the disbeliever or antisemite. Of course, I was speaking of my notes.Nishidani 21:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So you did not want to give me "access" to your notes ? You wanted me to 'earn it' ? Zeq 22:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal. Too many editors skim the net for info that might help their cause. The net is an inferior source of information, since much is highly POV. The best source of information is the relevant historical scholarship. That scholarship is in books, in libraries. Hence, if you want to know the state of the art of a subject, go to a library, and don't surf the net. If we all did this, Wikipedia would be a RS, which it is not. It mainly reflects selective chat-battles among varied interests groups who work the net to influence public opinion.Nishidani 09:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.

I already suggested Zeq to buy books on the topic.

I think NPOV can only be reached in :

1. reading secondary sources from scholars of different pov's and the critics about their work

2. check ourselves as much as possible the primary sources on which they base their mind.

3. giving as fairly as possible DUE weight to all this material.

Alithien 09:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Another good source

The British Empire and the Second World War By Ashley Jackson - page 146.

http://books.google.com/books?id=xTKtPPEDTtQC&dq=the+british+empire+and+the+second+world+war+by+ashley+jackson&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=-w83HoJUYk&sig=zh8PyEA2ifMONBmv_0SBBgZmJ9Y

The Second World War By Winston Churchill - page 234

Zeq 19:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"The Balfour Declaration did not name Palestine as "the" Jewish national home. Instead, the Balfour Declaration only established "in" Palestine a national home for the Jewish people. It was endorsed by the principal Allied powers, and, through its acceptance by the Conference of San Remo in 192O, it became an instrument of British and international policy. The mandate had been officially interpreted in a statement of June 3, 1922, in which Winston Churchill, the British Colonial Secretary, announced that the declaration meant not the "imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews of other parts of the world, in order that it may become a center in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. " His Majesty's government, he announced, had not contemplated at any time, as appeared to be feared by the Arabs, "the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine." On July 24, 1922, the League of Nations approved the British mandate over Palestine that included the Balfour Declaration in the preamble and various provisions dealing with facilitating Jewish immigration and stressing the Jewish historical connection with Palestine. The mandate gave Britain the power to alter the provisions of the mandate regarding the area east of the Jordan River, and on Sept. 22, 1922, the British officially announced that the Balfour Declaration would not apply to the area east of the Jordan, about 75 percent of the total area. This area was closed to Jewish immigration. " Zeq 11:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Uri Avnery

Re User:Armon's edit. This is getting quite comical. Uri Avnery, a German Jew whose family was chased out of his homeland by Nazis, who then militated with the Irgun, later recanted, became a member of the Knesset, is not a 'reliable source', while all over these pages, Shmuel Katz, who, emigrating from South Africa, militated with the Irgun, didn't recant, and became a member of the Knesset, is taken as an impeccable source. It's the first time I've encountered the idea that if a peace activist not RS, if an extreme pro-Zionist, RS. Go figure.Nishidani 10:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

antiwar.com is a proeganda web site and not a WO:RS source. Armon is correct. Zeq 11:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No it is not a propaganda website. Nor is a former member of the Knesset an Unreliable Source. I don't care either way, that much but think editors here should be rather more careful of their sources. I have just removed this one.[2]Nishidani 13:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Who put that in? adelaideinstitute is a holocaust denial site! The irony is, the actual article they reprinted (and were complaining about) was from a reliable source -see the proper cite: Hitler’s Mufti by David G. Dalin a professor of history and political science in First Things. <<-armon->> 14:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:RS please and at that point we will continue the discussion. Zeq 13:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:RS, and note that citing material written by members of Israel's Knesset is perfectly innocuous. Nishidani 13:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing there about the Knesset. I am sure I can find some other things that Knesset mebers said along the years that are wrong so being a member of knesset does not qualify for good or bad. it is meanigless for WP:RS. It seems that you still have not read it since it talkes about the place where things are published and not about who is the speaker that sais them Zeq 13:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually Nishidani, you should read WP:RS and perhaps try and avoid dubious highly POV sources like Antiwar.com and Lenni Brenner and use historians for history. Benny Morris was OK, but you were using him to comment on Zionists, not the subject. NPOV requires that we clean up the apologia. <<-armon->> 13:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually <<-armon->> you should read the sources, and not just the pages. You have eliminated evidence from Walter Laqueur, Benny Morris, and Lenni Brenner, not to speak of Uri Avnery, simply because you dislike the evidence. Laqueur is an impeccable source, as in Benny Morris, and your only option there is to edit the prose. Otherwise what you are doing is removing material from RS because you dislike it. Your remark n Morris is incmprehensible. Morris, if you know the book, is dealing directly with the incidents the article describes, and if one of Israel's finest historians judges the situation that way, you have to accept it as a reasonable reference. It is not a violation of NPOV to cite an historian. It is a violation of NPOV to censor a conclusion by a nted historian because you personally dislike that historian's conclusion. What is there is not an 'apologia'. It is a paraphrase of what Morris wrote. So edit the language, not the analysis. As for Brenner, you apparently don't know that when the said book came out, in 1984, it got good publishing notices, in The Times of London and elsewhere. Your edit on him reflects a dislike of his approach, personal distaste for his private views. If Joseph Schlechtman, or Shmuel Katz can be quoted all over these pages, so can Brenner.

As for Avnery you didn't even check, this second time round, evidently. Gush Shalom, which is where the new source for Avnery's remark, is a RS for Avnery's views. You didn't check and repeated the censure, thinking it was from antiwar.com, proof you don't read what you edit out. Nishidani 14:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Avnery is not a historian and neither is Brenner, they are fringey activists. If you want an "impeccable source" you wouldn't use them -that is, unless you want to push pov. As for Morris, the article is about the mufti, the section is about his incitement of the 1929 Palestine riots. The passage in which you were soapboxing Morris didn't deal with that, instead, it was an attempt to provide exculpatory evidence. It may have been sourced, but it was distorted and off topic. <<-armon->> 15:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You can have Anvery, which I never put in in any case, just as I didn't put in the passage by Morris, and therefore accusing me of 'soapboxing Morris' is, as is now a commonplace with you, off the mark. Morris reviews on those pages the incident dealt with, and is not 'exculpatory' in any other sense than that a later historian, dealing with archives, discovers that the simplistic one-sided POV-ridden view of history of the kind driving this page, is not so simple. He cited a wave of events, as does Laqueur. Don't take up your complaints with me or Brenner (favourably reviewed by historians at the time and still considered reliable). Take them up with Laqueur. The only motivation I can discern is you want Laqueur's reference to 'Doar Hayom' off the page, because that reference shows that at least some Jabotinsky publicists were writing, in Hebrew, for Jews in Palestine, articles claiming rights to all of the wall. Laqueur says this is part of the record, and if you dislike it, drop him a line and protest.Nishidani 15:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So there's evidence that al-Husayni could read Hebrew and saw that article? If I remove something which is off-topic, and used as apologia (Morris doesn't actually dispute his role in the incitement), and you repeatedly put it back in, then as far as I'm concerned, it's "yours". <<-armon->> 22:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A note

In case the tag-team gambit on getting me to violate the 3RR works, this for the record. I was interrupted by circumstances from finishing my final edit here. It should run:

On August 14th, 1929 some 6,000 Jews marched in Tel Aviv, chanting The Wall is ours, and prayers by half that number were made at the wall that night. a Betar demonstration followed the next day, and heated rumours raced round the Arab community to the effect that the haram itself was in danger. Al Hussayni's activists stoked the flames enjoining them to attack Jews and defend the holy sites. He refused to accept official Jewish assurances that these areas were in their sights, and in the escalating tensions, with the parts of the Arab community inflamed by rumours that the Jews did indeed wish to take possession of the Mosque of Omar, the notorious massacres took place.^[1] In reviewing these events, and their analysis in the Shaw Report, a decade after this complex set of charges and counter-charges, the Mandates Commission concluded that al-Husayni’s accusations had exacerbated Arab hostilities.Nishidani 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

what is this ?

"He rused to accept official Jewish assurances that these areas were in their sights, " Zeq 18:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Still does not make any sense "He refused to accept official Jewish assurances that these areas were in their sights, and in the escalating tensions, with the parts of the Arab community inflamed by rumours that the Jews did indeed wish to take possession of the Mosque of Omar, the notorious massacres took place." Zeq 19:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

'He refused to accept official Jewish assurances that they did not aspire to take over the area.'

The error is my fault. I broke off my edit due to visiters knocking at my door, like Coleridge with the gentleman from Porlock.Nishidani 19:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Mufti's role in the 1929 Palestine riots

"At the time, his role was hotly disputed". -it's not now. We need to keep that clear. <<-armon->> 22:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

KEY Key document

This is a key document for this article: [3] I recomnd everyone to read it (including those who might prefer to find it in book format and not just on the net). I reveals new information onm the Mufti active role in trying to eliminate the "Jewish National home" in Palestine.

I also suggest that who keep reverting to "Jewish state instead of national home for the Jewish people will read a bit about the 1927 balfour declration and what was promised there. The terminlogy is clear. Zeq 04:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Your document is seriously distorted eg when it says "and Palestine under the British Mandate was regarded as one of the favorite destinations for refuge", when it was always the least favourite amongst the refugees themselves.

I've had to stop myself from saying more in case it appears like an attack on your participation and basic understanding of the events. PR^talk 23:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Both phrases redirect to the same article so why don't we just link directly to Homeland of the Jewish People and be done with it. <<-armon->> 00:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mufti legacy

We need to work more on this subject and on his infulance on current situation.

Here is a suggestion/source:

"The mufti soon became the recognized leader of the Palestinian movement. He had an ideological impact on Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah; and he was implicated in planning the 1951 murder of King Abdullah of Jordan, who supported peace with Israel. Husseini also helped create the Palestinian Liberation Organization and played a large role in rejecting the UN Partition Plan, which would have created separate Arab and Jewish states in Mandatory Palestine.

Perhaps Husseini’s longest-lasting impact on Arab attitudes came in Egypt when he met Yasser Arafat. The younger man soon became a devoted protégé of the mufti. Arafat influenced Palestinian policy and tactics for decades. As Yossi Klein Halevi wrote in the National Catholic Reporter on the eve of Arafat’s death, Arafat “raised a generation of Palestinian children to see in suicide bombers religious and educational role models” and caused Holocaust denial to become “normative.” In 1985, Arafat said that the PLO was “continuing the path” that Husseini set, and in 2002, he called the mufti “our hero.” "[4]

We need to work on it more. Zeq 04:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The mufti is exclusively a religious authority. Here is Huneidi, Sahar "A Broken Trust, Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians". ISBN 1-86064-172-5, p.232: "By restricting the Palestinian Arab organization to religious affairs, Samuel prevented Arab leaders from exercising and developing their authority in the crucial political, economic and social fields. ... Conversely, to the Jewish community, which at that time constituted about 7 per cent of the population, Samuel offered wide powers of autonomy, including the power to levy taxes." PalestineRemembered (talk 15:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya right. Because of the British the Mufti was never a leader.....right on. This is minority POV which is not supported by the facts. Zeq 03:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Mufti is an advisor to a Sharia court, of no influence over the British whatsoever. He had the power to choose the teachers in religious schools and the budget that paid them - that's about it.

Meanwhile, the British appointed a high commissioner who immediately made Hebrew an official language, added "Israel" to the stamps, and gave Zionist agencies the power to raise taxes and form their own parallel administration. All this while they were just a tiny fraction of the population. British tax payers money went to build roads - but only between the new settlements.

All of this comes from the historical sources - I'm sure you're familiar with them. PR^talk 22:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish state" or did he object "national homeland for the Jewish people"

Mansfield News, 31 May 1919 DESCCENDENT OF MOHAMMED IS OPPOSED TO ZIONIST COMMONWEALTH

"The grand mufti of Palestine, descendent of Mohammed and head of all Moslems of Palestine, in a recent statement declared his opposition to a "Zionist commonwealth in the Holy Land. The mufti declared he is backed by a solid block of 500,000 Palestine Arabs, whose national aspirations are quite different their brethren of Hedjaz, Syria and of Egypt. Most of these Arabs, according to the Mufti, have studied English, almost all of them know French and they are a thinking and progressive people"

Zeq 05:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You make the guy sound over-tolerant towards "make Israel as Jewish as England is English". And you're still making it seem as if "Mufti" is some high title with political power or influence. It's not, it's an advisor to a Sharia court. PR^talk 14:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am getting impatiant with this "you" thing. All I brought above is a quote showing the Mufti objection to the Balfour declaration. On one hand you accuse me for doing that and in another place I am accused of hiding this fact. So you guys need to decide which is it: Am I trying to hide the Mufti objection to balfour or I am not. ?????

Likewise, I am not going to argue with you the Mufti riole as a palestinian leader. He was. He is a revreed figure and consdered a hero. There are still to this day (and there were before) many who are Mufti supporters - they are outthere in the real world (I am not talking about wikipedia here). The "Mufti supporters" in the real world have a valid POV - this wikipedia article should refelcet the view that he is a hero (in the eyes of some. He lead the foundations together withj Izz a din al-Kasam and Hassan Banna. Zeq 02:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien - stop the reverts (take 2)

Alithien - Please stop the reverts.

I know you think I am this monster. Try me. Discuss things with me which you think are wrong.

We are not going to discuss apreiri every small change but once an edit was made and you have objections: Please by all means, raise them and let's discuss. reverting will lead you no where - unless your wish is to freeze this article because it fits your POV.

So if all you want is to freeze the situation - you should continue to act as you did and revert endlessly - at that point the article will get protected and you get a "temporary" win.

But if you want cooperartion: Just raise your objections on talk page. I will listen and respond and hopefully we can reach a decision. Zeq 14:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq,

Sorry for that but

1. You are the one who started an edit war and who has been requested to discuss (8th times)

2. You are the one who went several times in front of the ArbCom and who has a past of "problematic" relations with other editors.

3. You are the one who regularly victimizes yourself seeing antisetism where it is not.

4. You are the one who does not have read enough material on these topics and who uses "google search on internet" or "1 article" as The Reference. You didn't read enough on the matter and didn't gather enough different pov's to be able to give information its due:weight.

No article fits my POV simply because I don't have any (eg. I still don't know if that guy was really antisemite or not; that is a crazy issue that would deserve a real specialist on the matter). The main problem in wikipedia comes from editors who misunderstands we do not "negociate" what should be in the article or "defend" a pov but that we only gathers all the "relevant" pov on a matter and give them their due weight.

Alithien 10:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Alitein,

I am always willing to discuss. Discussion is not "pre-aproval". If you want to edit - please edit, add/change what ever. This is the spirit of wkipedia. But....If you disgaree with someone else edit and you want to revert: At that point I suggest you raise your objection. I have done the same. Zeq 16:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Alithien I'm afraid there is not much hope for this page for the two editors, Zeq and Armon have little historical understanding of the subject, and are exclusively concerned with 'framing' Al-Husayni's 1919-1929 behaviour, not as representative of the general Arab revolt against the Balfour Declaration (as the Mandatory Commission reviewing the Shaw Report intimated), but as simply an expression of 'anti-semitism'. He was definitely a Nazi-affiliated 'antisemite' later on. But the two editors, even working in tandem, have no grasp of the historical literature and we should perhaps let them go on destroying the page as far as they can with this puerile POV-pushing, and only intervene to restore some order and NPOV approach, when some relevant Wiki commission keeps Zeq off such pages for his incompetence and editing abuses. Best regards Nishidani 14:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am not a source but i would like to see sources that frame Mufti behaviour as "general Arab revolt against the Balfour Declaration " - This is very important to this article. If you have such sources please bring them in. Thanks. Zeq 15:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"as the Mandatory Commission reviewing the Shaw Report intimated" Nishidani, if you want to present reliably sourced background information, rather than OR, by all means, do it. However, the place for it is in the 1929 Palestine riots article, not here. Here we are dealing with the Mufti's role in the events. Please stay on topic, and please avoid tantrums about other editors. <<-armon->> 00:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No tantrum, just impatience with incompetence, ignorance or laziness. I.e. your repeated restoration of this passage, and the link:-

Snell's opinion was, several years later, endorsed by a further British re-investigation, which considered the Mufti's innovations at the Wailing Wall doubly provocative, in aiming to both annoy the Jews, and to emphasize Muslim ownership of the site. It concluded that the Wailing Wall episodes constituted 'one of the principle immediate causes of those disturbances'

The reports deal with the Mufti's role, so it is not OR to refer to them. Indeed the rest of the text does. You both seem to be thoroughly confused. Nishidani 09:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about what your objection is -that much is true. Do you dispute that passage? If so, why? (The link needs to fixed -it's broken). <<-armon->> 12:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you in the simplest terms:-

(A)Snell's opinion is in the Shaw Report (1930)

(B) The Mandatory Commission report which revived Snell's claim was conducted in (1930)

(C)What further British re-investigation here alludes to is unknown. The several years later looks like it refers to the Peel Commission report published in 1937.

(D)The link to verify which of the two reports (B) (C) is being alluded to support the assertion in the passage does not work, though it appears to refer to (B). If it refers to B, then both the British Reinvestigation and several years later are false. If (C) then that is not linked, and it is not proven that (C) supports the claim in Snell's minority opinion. Q.E.D.Nishidani 13:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Every time you use "Q.E.D." this indicate an OR. we don't reach out own conclusions here - we bring other's view point. Zeq 13:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please try to learn English, to a level that will enable you not to consistently misread what other editors are saying and doing. I was asked a question, I replied to the question in logical form, involving no OR, but simply pointing out, in logical form, the error in a passage both you and Armon support. My comments are not original research, they are annotations on the incomprehensible sourcing and content of a passage on the page.(Q.E.D.). This is the third time you radically misunderstand simple statements in EnglishNishidani 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't confuse my spelling with my english... Anyhow when you say this: "simply pointing out...the error in a passage both you and Armon support" you show that misundertood not one but 2 wikipedia policies:

WP:AGF - I support nothing. I bring sources, that is all.
WP:OR - it is not your role to point out errors in sources. If you want write a book and we WILL quote you but here all that you and I can do is bring sources - even those we don't like. Zeq 14:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect you are simply doing this to waste other people's time. I am not pointing out errors in sources. The passage both you and Armon support, (please read the page you are both editing), is on the Wiki page: the remark I made does not refer to a source. If you understood English at an elementary level you would have seen this. I am pointing out errors on the page you and Armon support, on the Wiki page. I am noting to you both, secondly, that the source you both use(link 9) does not support the statements on that Wiki page. If I have to make it simpler than this, I must confess that I won't be able to. For I have no experience in teaching English as a second language at kindergarten level. I suppose if you persist, reluctantly, I will have to haul the evidence for your fatal inability to understand English before some Arbitrator. People who cannot understand primary school English should not be editing on the English Wiki. Were it not profoundly comical, this exchange would be supremely ridiculous Nishidani 15:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to "drag me to some arbitor" let me give you an advise: What you just wrote to me will not earn you any point and the accuser may find himself the accused. Why don't you be polite and civil instead of just trying to show that others don't understand what at your level you have already know. We are here to edit an encyclopedia not to belittle other people. I expect an appology for a start. Zeq 16:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of wasting other people's time. I like to keep my record clean of the endless jejeune whingeing for arbitration that mars this encyclopedia, and distracts editors from the work of writing for Wiki. I do not work on Wikipedia to cultivate friendships, but to collaborate with other competent and capable editors in writing quality articles. I haven't belittled anyone. I merely noted an objective fact, that you obviously do not understand English sufficiently to collaborate, since repeatedly you fail to understand quite simple statements by other editors. If you cannot understand other editors, you probably cannot understand the sources in English. I have no objection to you editing this page, as long as you try to read the sources you quote, and understand correctly what the editors you engage with are actually saying (as against what you suspect they might be saying), which so far I find no evidence for. Now, if you want to fix the many problems with this page, address my original question, and if you have difficulty, ask Armon to help you out, since he is a native speaker of English. The point is, as the text stands, the para. dealing with Snell's apparent vindication by another Commission is wrongly sourced, and defies the known facts. Both you and Armon have repeatedly reverted to that text. I have repeatedly shown you why that text is defective on two counts, and instead of addressing the question you try to drag me into a civility debate. Civil manners consist in listening attentively to what other people say. Not in jumping at any opportunity to transform a legitimate objection into a personal dispute. You are both responsible for a defective text, and therefore should fix it. If you do, I will take that as a sign of good faith.Nishidani 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I will fix everything needed. This section in talk is just to ask Alithein to stop reverting any effort we make. Once the reverts quiet down I will fix what ever need to be fixed. Zeq 18:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's not personalize this. Alithien is a very responsible and knowledgeable editor, and he and I reverted as did you and Armon. I'm glad to see you will fix the passage.Nishidani 19:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

- - Read Mr Van Rees' testimony and the Mandatory Commission's Review of the Shaw Report. Since the text already refers to that report, you, as an involved editor, are supposed to have read it. Nishidani 16:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

please cut thje condisending tone. I am aware of that tetimony. I am looking for a much broad, historic overview which (and I quote you) "framing' Al-Husayni's 1919-1929 behaviour, not as representative of the general Arab revolt against the Balfour Declaration" Zeq 16:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq's editing of some Israel-Palestine pages has been challenged - and is under scrutiny here. He is alleged to have been editing pages from which he was supposed to have been permanently barred. PR^talk 15:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

...and you've narrowly avoided a indefinite block for your "participation" on WP. Stick to the matter at hand -the article. <<-armon->> 00:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed by a further British re-investigation

Snell's opinion was, several years later, endorsed by a further British re-investigation, which considered the Mufti's innovations at the Wailing Wall doubly provocative, in aiming to both annoy the Jews, and to emphasize Muslim ownership of the site. It concluded that the Wailing Wall episodes constituted 'one of the principle immediate causes of those disturbances' http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/3d14c9e5cdaa296d85256cbf005aa3eb/5f21f8a1ca578a57052566120067f658!OpenDocument

I've moved the sentence here so we can work it out what the facts are. If it's erroneous, we don't want it in the article. <<-armon->> 04:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC) The source is: PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH(Extraordinary)SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930 -I don't find the quoted phrase "one of the principle immediate causes of those disturbances" so this will have to be changed. Is there another RS source, that used this phrase which was commenting on the 17th session? <<-armon->> 04:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't seem to have anything for the subsequent re-investigation, we're pointing back to the 1930 PMC. Furthermore, the "minority opinion" in 1930 is irrelevant. Modern historians (eg the Zionist Benny Morris) make it clear that there were long-standing and eventually violent attempts to seize the Wall. Yes, the Mufti did contribute to the riots, but the alarm of the Palestinians wasn't based on some kind of "false rumour". The 1929 riots occured when yet another, violent, attempt was made to seize the wall while the British, who'd previously protected the ownership rights on the wall, were away on their summer holidays. PR^talk 07:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mufti's image

I gather that the Mufti's image reviewing SS troops has been removed, and cannot understand why. I mean it is part of his record, and I can't see anything polemical in having it on the page. If anyone can give me a simple explanation why it can't be there, I would appreciate it.Nishidani 08:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was deleted because it was missing non-free use rationale. Non-free images or media claiming fair use but without a use rationale may be deleted seven days after they are tagged. <<-armon->> 11:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, removing it looks like a mistake. It was commented out because there were 2 images, one of which had been deleted. It's back. <<-armon->> 12:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Nishidani 12:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Notes on good and bad sources

I know one is not to dispute sources by original research. One should however (1) read sources (2) see if they add to the RSs already present. Here I will make some notes, not of original research, but merely remarking what some sources used argue, and the problems for the text of what they argue. I leave it to others to judge whether, in consequence, they will prove useful. Personally I think one should aim for the best sources, and keep out repetitive tertiary material of the tabloid type, which only conveys an opinion of indifferent value.

(a) I have no haste but the Dalin article in the lead is a terrible mess as evidence. He has not examined most of the sources, and gets a large number of facts wrong, and perhaps a better source is available. After all, al-Husayni has attracted much scholarship, and this is simply not up to snuff. I.e.

'On August 23, 1929, al-Husseini led a massacre of sixty Jews in Hebron and another forty-five in Safad'.'

He didn't lead a massacre which at least in English suggests that al-Husayni was there in the crowd. He was suspected of being responsible for the inflamed passions that lead to those massacres.

The number of Jews massacred in Hebron was 65-67
The number of Jews murdered in Safed on the 29th(not 23rd) was 18.

led a massacre secondly implies an ascertained historical fact, whereas the 'smoking gun' linking him directly to an order to kill the Jews in Hebron and Safed doesn't exist (so far). He was absolved of legal responsibility by the Shaw Report because of the lack of evidence for this that would stand up in court. He was considered responsible by the Mandatory Commission because they weren't concerned with legal proof, but circumstantial evidence which indicated he at least had a moral and political responsibility (I agree with this, personally, but at the same time agree with historians that the record regarding 'responsibilities' for the riots does not lay solely with al-Husayni, but with many other actors as well - the British, the Jabotinsky brigades, newspapers on both sides etc).

Etc.etc.Nishidani 12:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(b) The text has:-

'It should be noted that some recent research, however, apparently argues that al-Husayni did work with Eichmann for the despatch of a special corps of Einsatz commandos to exterminate the Jews in Palestina, if Rommel managed to break through the British lines in Egypt.[24].'

I put this in following an indication from Talk and Zeq. I relied on the German text in the Stuttgart, Aktuelles report on their research (n.24). I have now read closely Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers's paper. There is no additional information there on Al-Husayni, other than the fact that Rauff's assistant helped him in Berlin. Indeed the reference to al-Husayni's connection with Eichmann, which several historians deny, is not corroborated by new research on their part, but simply cites the disproven testimony of Wisliceny. The appropriate note reads:-

Vern. Dieter Wisliceny v. 26.7.1946, Yad Vashem Archives, TR.3/129; on Wisliceny, see Dan Michman, “Täteraussagen und Geschichtswissenschaft. Der Fall Dieter Wisliceny und der Entscheidungsprozeß zur ‘Endlösung’,” in Matthäus and Mallmann, eds., Deutsche, Juden, Völkermord, pp. 205–219; Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem. Ein Bericht von der Banalität des Bösen (Munich-Zürich: Piper, 1986), p. 37, by contrast, Eichmann’s defensive claim was that he was introduced to the Mufti and met him only once, at an official reception. (p.27 n.84)

In other words, the Mallmann-Cuppers paper has nothing to add to what RSs already cited in the page give us, and indeed conserves dated testimony which the Eichmann trial (as Arendt, whom we have quoted, noted, and many historians confirm) dismisses as disproven.

For the curious, what Mallmann-Cuppers' paper does argue is that Rauff's Einsatz commando was a forward troop (of 24 men, originally and then 100) put into Africa to finish off the Holocaust in Palestine (against 500,000 Jews) when Rommel from the West and the German army from the Caucasus broke through. The problem with their thesis is that Raul Hilberg documents that the Rauff commandos, when they finally had in their grasp the 80,000 Jews of Tunisia, were forbidden by the German Foreign Office's troubleshooter, (Rahn) at the time attached to the German Embassy in Rome, to do any more than round up men from that community to engage in fortification hard labour, and extort 47 kilos of gold from them. The Bosnian evidence is far better than this stuff, and I think the page would benefit from a more detailed exposition of al_Husayni's work with the Islamic regiment there Nishidani 14:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mufti images

The delete of mufti images based on some "copyright unknown" issue is ridiculus argument. these are images from over 60 years ago. they are in the public domain for a long time and are all over the web. The photographer was an officila for Nazi Germany which no longer claim any copyright for any of it's intelectual property... Zeq 13:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide some sort of proof/link that Nazi-produced media has been declared to be in the public domain? That they are "all over the web" is not a valid argument, as many, many sites use images and other media without permission. This image in particular appears to have been copied from a right-wing blog, as the pixel and file size match exactly. I have contacted that blogger to see where he got it from, but if you can provide poof of the public domain claim, then it would make that request moot, as there are no restrictions on what one can do with PD images. Tarc 14:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarc. Well the problem, I see, is technical. But I cannot image that those Nazis who took thousands of obscene photos of people being massacred in WW2 have any case for asking for fees or exercising copyright over them. Just from a moral point of view (I know this doesn't count) the only people who should have copyright on this material are the actual victims' heirs. Wiki never ceases to surprise for these quixotic issues it raises Nishidani 15:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarc - here is the proof that this is now public domain http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2005-06,RNWE:en&q=mufti%20hitler&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi Zeq 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I will ask you again to provide a source that says that Nazi-era images are in the public domain. Do not insult both my intelligence and the intelligence of others again by posting links to simplistic google hits. Tarc 22:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel insulted by a proof that these photos are in the public domain (as they were taken 60 years ago by an entity that no longer exit) that is your own probelm. Don't be insulted by the facts - they have no intention to insult. Zeq 04:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq. Tarc's request is technical correct. I don't think anyone would disallow the image, since it is pertinent documentation. There are rules governing the use of images, and Tarc is simply asking that they be verified. Someone on Wiki should surely know about the technical copyright law governing Nazi material like this. It is purely a matter of disinterested curiosity, and of procedures.There is no subtext here, as far as I can see Nishidani 09:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq, you did not introduce facts into this discussion, only your non-expert opinion on copyright law. I found what I was looking for here; WP:PD#German_World_War_II_images where it seems that, outside of material confiscated by the US government (and even that claim seems to be shaky), such images are not in the public domain. The image in question currently has a fair sue rationale for the Islam and antisemitism article, but a separate rationale will need to be written to justify its use in this article. Tarc 13:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One-eyed historical focus

Recent edits do not give one much confidence that the prior tendency to eliminate inconvenient facts crucial to certain contexts, and focus unilaterally on whatever evidence can frame al Husayni as an antisemite, has been conquered. Trying to retrospectively read the 1921-1929 period in terms of Nazism and al Husayni as leader is unhistorical. Laqueur, Benny Morris even Ben Ari and Schechtman give sufficient details to show that within Zionism there were two schools, one, the mainstream, that accepted a Jewish homeland would not be a state, and the other revisionist Zionism under Jabotinsky, which said it must become a Jewish state. Both in the 1921 and 1929 riots, Jabotinsky and al-Husayni were considered by the authorities as responsible. In 1921 both got gaol terms, in Dec 1929, after writing for public consumption in Jerusalem that it had been a good thing to 'provoke' the Arabs to do what they did (and Betarim had constituted the core of the provocateurs), Jabotinsky was permanently banned from returning to Palestine. To lay the blame on al Husayni alone is scapegoating. His position was shared by not only many religious figures, but also political figures on the Arab Executive, as both the League of Nations and the Shaw Report recognize. Thirdly, both the League of Nations and Shaw Reports hold less weight that the recent historical literature, which has been harvested only for whatever fits the schema, and ignored whenever the evidence tells against the story line this page seems dedicated to upholding for that early period. Nishidani 21:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or. I wrote the above before seeing your erasure of the POV label. Read back. Zeq and Armon have cancelled out Benny Morris, Walter Laqueur and Lenni Brenner's reconstruction of the events recounted partially in the Shaw Report and the League of Nations Report. They have highlighted the League's Mr Van Rees' remarks, and ignored everything else. They have highlighted the Snell minority view, and ignored everything else. Modern historians are supposed to give the full story, not a partial account. This does not mean that the page was slip into a disquisition on both Inquiries. But the language must not give the false impression that substantial parts of both documents fingered Al Husayni. They listed a large number of causes for the riots, and al Husayni's role is by no means that of sole inspirer, as the text would have us believe. Both reports note considerable Jewish responsibilities (Betarim demonstrations for example), economic fears, and general Arab resentment that their homeland was being given to alien third parties. The page instead gives the impression that had al Husayni not existed, no such disturbances would have occurred. Not even the League of Nations Commission believed that. They believed that had not the Jews existed, probably the Arabs would have risen up against the British colonial power Nishidani 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No one here lays all the blame on the mufti. The Shaw Report said he was partially responsible; this is what is relevant for the article about him. If you want to discuss the causes and consequences of 1929 or 1936 riots, there are appropriate articles for that. Beit Or 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The point that Nisagdini misses is that this is an article about the Mufti. WE should highlight all that he has done: the parts that is views by some as positive and the part that is viwed by others as negative. It is possible that the same act is viwed differetnly by different po\eople. In nay case the Mufti, his viwes, his action are the subject of this article. I don't think it matters if he was responsible by 35% or 55% or 65% to some specific act. The issue is much more general - who he was, what diod he symbolize, what did he initiate, why people followed him, what was he against. I am sure even Nishadini would agree on that. Zeq 07:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid neither Beit nor Zeq appear to understand how biographies and historical articles are written. All historians of the period and of Al Husayni deal with the period, the context, in order to understand the figure. What this article does is selectively read the record to dig up whatever is negative (fine by me), and, at the same time, exclude whatever might cast a more complex light on his actions. These articles are supposed to give full voice to the historians, not a partial reading based on one or two passages in several that appeal to some editors. Protest as much as you like, but Morris, Laqueur and the rest will come back to the page. Zeq again, you seem to think this is a balancing act between 'positive' and 'negative' and therein lies your failure to understand how an article should be written. That one must contextualize the 'negative' acts of Al Husayni in the realities of his time does not mean one is evaluating those acts 'positively'. It simply means one is making sense of them. To remove the context, all you end up is with a solitary maniac motivated by some obscure passionate antisemitism, being hostile to Jews in Palestine in 1920-1929 because they are Jews. He like most Arabs, Muslim and Christian, disliked the Balfour Declaration because it betrayed promises undertaken for an independent state, and looked like handing over that area to a foreign immigrant population. That does not make his incitements 'positive', it makes them 'intelligible', as part of a counter-nationalistic mood, arising in reaction to Zionism. since all Israeli and Jewish historians I am familiar with agree that this is the case, I fail to understand why every attempt to report these facts is systemaically repressed (well actually I do know why:-). Nishidani 11:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Nishidani should apply these ideas to articles such as Israeli arabs, Nakba. He could explain that in 1948 many population transfers took place. In fact throughout all the 2oth century hundreds of millions were displaced. There is nothing unique about Palestinians - when viewed "with the period, the context". same would be about israeli arbs - they enjoy better conditions than say , Arabs in Syria. So if you want context - sure, apply it in every article. you are more than welcome to provide context here as well. If you think that being against Jews because they are jews is NOT antisemitism - just quote a source saying it.

As for your refusal to mix the "good" and "bad" I suggest you review WP:NPOV Zeq 18:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, you're descending ever further into personal attacks and incivility. Please state point-by-point what edits you wish to make and why. Otherwise, we'll never have a productive discussion. Beit Or 21:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, I tend to ignore his violation of WP:NPA at least for now as his edits are so clearly POV and violate policy. Let's find out what explnation he has for the edit below (which is against what he actually claimed just few days earlier). let's hear what he has to say. Maybe we will get a short relevant answer ??? who knows . Zeq 02:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't violatedWP:NPOV or WP:NPA or any other rule. I am calling a spade a spade. Neither of you can justify recent behaviour of editing out a whole section in which historians contextualize both the Shaw Report and the Mandatory Report of the League of Nations. In both those documents, unlike what you give here, Amin al Husayni is not Moriarty. His responsibility is one of many causes for the incidents. The text makes him out as leader of the revolts, which were, in both documents, rooted in a generalized Arab resistance to the Balfour Declaration and the LN project. I.e., you are both editing to create a POV, and this shows both incompetence, a contempt for all evidence undermining your POV and an insouciance to Wiki requirements for neutral editing.Nishidani 09:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishidani, please be specific: what edits do you want to make and why? Beit Or 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nishadini explain this edit please

You yourself said that Hussenini was against the Balfour Declaration of 1917 - so why this [5] ? Zeq 18:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Had you read the Mandatory paper of 1930 you would have recognized that 'Jewish National Home' in Palestine is the standard League of Nations and British Policy term (from 1922) for the project. Neither the League of Nations nor Britain agreed with the idea that a Jewish state (as it was put earlier on this page) was on the cards. That was an idea pushed by Jabotinsky at the time.Nishidani 09:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A state or not a state is not the issue here. I did not use the word state. The term used is the one used in the balfour declration and still you again reverted it without justification. I ask you again to explain why you made the revert. Please do not include in your answer speculation as to what another editor read or not - as you have no way knowing what I read. Zeq 05:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a revolutionary suggestion

Friends:

I have been lurking around this article since my single comment, in response to your RFC. I must say that, while I am impressed with the sincerity of both sides of this dispute, the thinly veiled acrimony that accompanies it does nothing good for the article, let alone your blood pressures.

I would like to propose a new approach to this article, one which has never been tried on the Wikipedia. I described it in a post I made at Wikipedia talk:Don't "call a spade a spade"#I have my own views. Please take a look at it and see if this is something you would like to try.

If you decide you want to try the approach, I am willing to act as mediator, if one is necessary.

Regards,

--Ravpapa 16:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a useful suggestion, since the opposite sides are more or less both sides of the coin Zeq is manufacturing, i.e. that Al Husayni was simultaneously an anti-semitic Nazi and the Father of the Palestinian Nationalist movement. The former was true from certainly the late 30s. The latter is a patent historical distortion, disowned both by the Shaw Report and the League of Nations review, and by later historians.

Since it's news to me that Al Husayni was, historically, the father of the Palestinian Nationalist movement, rather than being but one of many such figures, and the one given a high profile notoriety because of his Nazi-links, which enable POVers to smear Palestinian claims for autonomy as tainted with Nazism, I obviously can't join in. My only interest here is getting a page that is consistent with the known-facts, whatever they are, and not, as in the case of Zeq's agenda, balancing what he calls POV and POV. Facts are not POV, and it is the facts, not a POV I adduce which are being rejected, such as the fact that Jabotinsky himself claimed responsibility for the Arab riots, which he had incited via Betarim's mass demonstrations. Husayni is thought to bear responsibility, and so too, Jabotinsky. The British recognized the latter's grave responsibility for provocations and had Jabotinsky banned from ever setting foot in Palestine in Dec 1929. Not a word of this can, apparently, appear in the text, which reads as if history vindicates the accusation that al Husayni was the ringleader of riots that, of themselves, arose from antisemitism, and without any provocation. Nishidani 17:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if I misinterpreted your position in this dispute. The text that appears in my example is purely to emphasize the polarity of the views - we would have to write a lead to the article which would be mutually agreeable, and you are certainly free to write whatever you want on your side of the page.

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, just with the names switched. Don't you think that would be better than having this article sink into a morass of polemics and waddle around in that morass several times a day?

Anyway, it takes two to tango. If you guys want to keep slugging it out, it's your choice. --Ravpapa 19:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

'Given your unwavering belief in the historical record as you see it.'

I'm afriad this insistence on regarding my editing as governed by 'the historical record as I see it,' is wholly misplaced. I am insisting simply on 'the historical record' as that has been laid before editors by recognized historians, and not on jamming the text with unilateral conclusions (editorial POV). If, in an edit dispute, another editor gives me firm grounds for challenging something I have written, or for defending his own edit (see for a few examples Menachem Begin talk page, or exchanges with User:Tewfik), I do not press the point, but recognize immediately the justice of the other editor's call. That is my natural pattern of editing - rules and evidence. I have only had run-ins with editors who are determined to put across a monocular slant on the material in defiance of the historical record, with editors who vigorously oppose any material that does not support the line they wish to adopt with a certain article. All these latter editors have a poor record with rule-violations and in arbitration disputes.

I am not 'acrimonious', nor do I enjoy 'slugging it away' with someone. Nor do I think that in every dispute whatever, a mediator of good will, as is the unwitting tendency of so many editors in Wiki, can prove his neutrality by saying 'you're both right' or 'your both wrong'. A neutral editor should be one who examines the arguments laid by each side for material strictly in terms of the criteria governing reliable sources. In this case, two editors have refused to accept evidence given by four reputable historians of the period, Laqueur, Schechtman, Morris and Brenner. This is, technically, a patent violation of the rules governing the composition of Wiki articles. For they are reliable sources, and you cannot contest a Reliable Source, you can only challenge the way evidence from Reliable Sources is presented (improper deductions, misleading representations of their positions etc).

Given this recent impasse, generally, I have not meddled in the article since Zeq had me cornered in a 3RR violation. Look at the record. I have simply maintained, on this page, that what he is doing (a) violates Wiki procedures (b) shows an ignorance, as often as not, of both the relevant historical materials bearing on the period and an inability to write what he does know in comprehensible English. In some cases, he is citing sources he has not read. No acrimony, no slugging. Just a request to other editors to read more history, and spend less time trawling the net for inferior sources to egg the pud for a preconceived POV. I will return to editing the article seriously when I find some sign of editorial competence in here. To 'slug it away' with someone who does not understand the rules is a waste of my time.Nishidani 10:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems indeed true that the divide here is not so much between pro and anti, but between those who want mere facts and those who try to present facts as much as possible in a light which serves their political goals. Paul kuiper NL 01:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What you call "facts" are what others call "views" so this comment has not helped us move forward. Clearly there are two viwes and both need to be represneted. there is enough scholarly evidence about Husseienin and his various roles. He was a great leader for the Palestinian people and inspired them tremandesly. Has he done them dissrevice ? that can be debated but not what he did and who he did it with and against whom he did it. Zeq 05:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should be able to understand that you give the strong impression that your motives are political. Obviously you do not like the Palestinian cause, and equally obviously you try to link Nazi-sympathizer al-Husayni as closely as possible to the present Palestinian cause. And, of course, Nishidani is right that this is 'a violation of the rules governing the composition of Wiki articles'. Paul kuiper NL 16:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The only problem is that I did none of those things. I help write about an important historic figure. that is all. None of your accusations hold any water. Let's move on. Please avoid second guessing motives of other editors. You are not a mind-reader. Zeq 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

^ Morris, Righteous Victims, ibid. pp.112-113

[1] Morris, Righteous Victims, ibid. pp.112-113

[1]

More and more serious problems with this article