Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War/Archive 4

A Note on Sources

In addition to the unsourced claims in the article discussed above there are references to two works by Joseph Schechtman and Maurice Pearlman. Schechtman was one of the founders of Revisionist Zionism. In March 1947 he travelled to Palestine with two representatives of the Jewish Agency Executive (Moshe Sneh and Moshe Shertok) and three members of the World Zionist Organization to work on the presentation of the "Palestine problem" to the UN. In early 1948 Schechtman lobbied the US government to support the forcible expulsion of the whole Palestinian Arab population from the Jewish state to Iraq. In 1956 he stood as Herut candidate for president of World Zionist Congress on a platform advocating a war by Israel against the Arab states in order to "restore the ancient frontiers of Palestine", a euphemism for conquering and occupying the neighbouring Arab states. Maurice Pearlman was an official Haganah spokesman. According to Idith Zertal the propaganda relating to the Mufti became prominent in the wake of the Eichmann trial in the early 60s during which there was "explicit mobilization of the Holocaust in the service of Israeli politics... especially in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict". It was then that the Mufti was linked to Eichmann and was depicted as an architect of the Final Solution. According to Zertal the topic of Arab-Nazi relationships did not exist as an issue in the nascent studies of the Holocaust before this time. Apparently the process culminated in the Mufti being given an entry in the Hebrew edition of the Yad Vashem Encyclopedia of the Holocaust almost as long as that of Hitler. --Ian Pitchford 22:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I would note a couple things: 1) It doesn't really matter whether one approves of the behavior of Schectman or Pearlman in pursuit of a "Greater Israel," assuming that is what they were up to (I confess I have no idea). To attack them in this way is, if I remember my formal logic correctly, a tu quoque attack, and not therefore compelling per se. I also think that the central issue here is not whether the Jews felt that the Mufti and, by extension, all hostile Arabs were Nazis but, rather, whether they felt they were in danger of being wiped out (and it need not be demonstrated that they were right in this belief in order for it to merit inclusion). If it were the case that Jews in the Middle East heard, in 1944 or at any time in the 40's (in person or through hearsay), the mufti and others urging Arabs to kill Jews wherever they could be found, this would be important in that it speaks to the attitude the early Israelis had towards those who invaded. IronDuke 22:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

All of this has been discussed above. References to the peer-reviewed literature would be needed to support each of these claims and if these issues are indeed important there will be numerous good sources that will fit better with Wikipedia's mission than works by an "official Zionist writer" and an "official Haganah spokesman" posing as historians. Logic doesn't render it impossible to assess the credibility of sources. --Ian Pitchford 22:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There are more then enough credible sources provided, please reply Talk:1948_Arab-Israeli_War#References. --Heptor 00:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

All right...so, Ian, does that mean that if the notion that Israelis feared genocide in the '48 war were credibly sourced, you would support the inclusion of the mufti's quote? IronDuke 00:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not Ian but I'll give my own opinion. It is true that some Israelis feared genocide in 1948 (and also true that some Arabs did, btw). This could be mentioned when we find a appropriate source to cite. However, that does not justify this "quotation" (either the 1944 one or the 1948 one). Nobody has provided any evidence that any Jews in Palestine even knew about it. It was certainly known that the Mufti was a collaborator who met Hitler, etc, and for many people that would have been enough. Use of such dubious material as this quotation would be damaging to the quality of the article. --Zero 09:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Iron Duke: Yes, most certainly. I think the article can discuss perceptions at the time as well as the reality, with appropriate references. In the interim I offer the following compromise text:

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni, the Chairman of the Arab Higher Committee collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War (even to the extent of interfering with plans to transfer Jewish children out of Bulgaria and Hungary, although there is no evidence that his intervention prevented their rescue^[1]) and was in exile in Egypt avoiding trial for alleged war crimes. Although the mufti was involved in some of the high level negotiations between Arab leaders, at a meeting held in Damascus to organize Palestinian Field Commands the commanders of his Holy War Army Hasan Salama and Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni were allocated only the Lydda district and Jerusalem. This decision "paved the way for an undermining of the Mufti's position among the Arab States. On 9 February, only four days after the Damascus meeting, a severe blow was suffered by the Mufti at the Arab League session in Cairo" where his demands for "the appointment of a Palestinian to the General Staff of the League, the formation of a Palestinian Provisional Government, the transfer of authority to local National Committees in areas evacuated by the British, a loan for administration in Palestine and appropriation of large sums to the Arab Higher Executive for Palestinians entitled to war damages"^[2] were rejected. The Arab League blocked recruitment to the mufti's forces^[3], which collapsed following the death of his most charismatic commander, Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni, on 8 April. After the war (and most notably during and after the trial of Adolf Eichmann) the mufti's role and the extent of his influence with the Nazis were inflated ^[4]

Pearlman's book came out before the war. Does Schechtman make reference to other material or make claims that are significantly "inflated" from Pearlman's pre-war claims? Kriegman 23:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

^{[5] [6]} in what historian Idith Zertal describes as "a landmark in the process of the organized, explicit mobilization of the Holocaust in the service of Israeli politics and state policy, especially in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict"^[7]. Zertal continues:

The transference of the Holocaust situation on to the Middle East reality, which harsh and hostile to Israel as it was, was of a totally different kind, not only created a false sense of the imminent danger of mass destruction. It also immensely distorted the image of the Holocaust, dwarfing the magnitude of the atrocities committed by the Nazis, trivializing the unique agony of the vicitms and the survivors, and utterly demonizing the Arabs and their leaders.^[8]

I would strongly oppose this paragraph being inserted as anything but POV. There is no evidence that the Israeli's did not face "imminnent destruction" if they lost the war. While there is no evidence to conclude that the Arabs would have engaged in genocide, that outcome is common in human history and not just in the Holocaust. So whether or not the sense of danger was "false" depends on what "would have" happened. Such speculation must only be presented as POV. In presenting the Mufti's quotation(s) and activities as a basis for Israeli fears (factual), I would agree to make it clear that the fears may not have been justified; we have no way of knowing what would have happened (speculation). Kriegman 23:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes

1. ^ Zertal, 2005, p. 102.
2. ^ Levenber, 1993, p. 198.
3. ^ Sayigh, 2000, p. 14.
4. ^ The Mufti of Jerusalem by Maurice Pearlman (1947).
5. ^ The Mufti and the Fuehrer by Joseph Schachtman (1965).
6. ^ During the 1948 War, the Mufti is also alleged to have said "I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" (Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter, Eds., Myths and facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Washington DC: Near East Report, 1982, p. 199). While this statement is widely reported in pro-Israeli writings, the only cited source for it appears to be traceable back to this one book, which has led some to doubt the historical accuracy of the quotation.
7. ^ Zertal, 2005, p. 99.
8. ^ Zertal, 2005, p. 100.

References

• Levenberg, Haim (1993). Military Preparations of the Arab Community in Palestine: 1945-1948. London: Routledge. ISBN 0714634395
• Sayigh, Yezid (2000). Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National Movement, 1949-1993. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198296436
• Zertal, Idith (2005). Israel's Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521850967

Comments welcome. --161.112.232.22 10:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be a massive improvement, except that that supposed 1948 quotation has no right to get a mention at all even as a disputed point. No relevance to 1948 has been demonstrated, and there are thousands of "quotations" with sources that are more deserving of inclusion. --Zero 12:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC).

By the way the quotation I and Kriegman want to include is from mufti's radio broadcasts during ww2. The 1948 quotaton has long been replaced due to your objections The quotation Zero mention has been removed from the article. Anyway, it has been used so many times that it definitly deserves to be mentioned in a footnote. --Heptor 16:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

As Heptor notes, we are talking about a 1944 quotation that was published in a 1947 book. To make the claim that this quotation and the activities of the "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem"---who was well known to the Jews, and was perceived as both a Nazi collaborator and an instigator of murderous violence against Jews and who was vying for leadership over the Palestinian forces---had no impact on how the Israelis perceived their foe is simply disingenuous. The placement of the 48 quotation into a footnote with the caveats added actually corrects the widespread assumption that that quotation (which many, many people believe is more or less accurate) has been proven to have occurred. It makes the article more complete as it does not ignore a frequently repeated belief about the war while noting that the evidentiary basis for that belief may be too weak to be relied upon. I see this as acknowledging the point that Ian and Zero have been trying to make without censoring the discussion. For me personally, I had no knowledge of the limited basis for believing the statement was made by the Mufti. While I still believe it for the reasons I presented more than once above, the fact that (as far as we can determine) all references are traced back to the one source is something that readers can use to reach their own conclusions. Kriegman 23:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, for the mufti's collaboration with the Nazis was quite extensive. As Kriegman earlier wrote earlier, at least some Germans considered Mufti important:

Evidence introduced at the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem indicates however that the Mufti and Eichmann were close and that the Mufti was an important role in instigating the Holocaust, according to second hand testimony of Steiner regarding Dieter Wisliceny, Eichmann's deputy for Slovakia and Hungary:

"State Attorney Bach: This is our document No. 281. Mr. Steiner first tells us that Wisliceny described his talks with Eichmann, why Palestine cannot be considered as the destination for emigration: "When I asked him why, he laughed and asked whether I had never heard of the Grand Mufti Husseini. He explained that the Mufti has very close contact and cooperation with Eichmann, and therefore Germany cannot agree to Palestine being the final destination, as this would be a blow to Germany's prestige in the Mufti's eyes."

Then he goes on: "At this further conversation Wisliceny gave me more details about the cooperation between Eichmann and the Mufti. The Mufti is a sworn enemy of the Jews and has always fought for the idea of annihilating the Jews. He sticks to this idea always, also in his talks with Eichmann" - and here we have one of the points about which Wisliceny has reservations - "who, as you know, is a German who was born in Palestine. The Mufti is one of the originators of the systematic destruction of European Jewry by the Germans, and he has become a permanent colleague, partner and adviser to Eichmann and Himmler in the implementation of this programme."

Here Wisliceny adds: "I have read these descriptions and find them correct, except for this, that Eichmann was born in Palestine, and that the Mufti was a permanent partner of Himmler's; this is not what I said."

Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1117."

Web source: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-050-07.html

Also, even if he received a major blow in those negotiations you describe, he was not still important after the war. For example, Egyptians declared him leader of the All-Palestine Goverment. This information should be mentioned, and it should be "according to some the mufti's role and the extent of his influence with the Nazis were inflated". --Heptor 17:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You can't argue with a web page, but here goes:

"The prosecutor also tried to establish that Eichmann and the mufti had had 'firm links'. All that could be determined was that they had met once, possibly in Eichmann's office, possibly at a social event." Christison, Kathleen (2001). Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Mid East. University of California Press, pp. 118-119. ISBN 0520217187

"The Mufti was in many ways a disreputable character, but postwar claims that he played any significant part in the Holocaust have never been sustained." Novick, Peter (2000). The Holocaust in American Life. Houghton Mifflin Books. p. 158 ISBN 0618082328

"none of the documents proved that it was the Mufti's interference that prevented the rescue of the children, nor could they sustain the claim that he was a major contributor to the Final Solution. Despite this lack of evidence, the Israeli prosecutor insisted on inflating the Mufti's role in the planning and implementation of Nazi crimes, devoting precious hours in court to the issue. The Israeli press followed suit." Zertal, Idith (2005). Israel's Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 103 ISBN 0521850967

The All-Palestine Government was formed in early September and destroyed in mid-October. Bar-Joseph, Uri (1987). The Best of Enemies: Israel and Transjordan in the War of 1948. London: Routledge. p. 132. ISBN 0714632112

--Ian Pitchford 21:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we have no firm information about the Mufti's influence over German policies and/or his relationship with Eichmann. But Christison's wording suggests that there was no evidence suggesting more than a single meeting. Though the evidence may have been insufficient to reach any other firm conclusion, there was evidence to the contrary. Novick's comment seems accurate to me (assuming we make clear that the Bosnian murders are not being considered insignificant). What is the basis for Zertal's conclusion that the prosecutor "insistend on inflating?" The materials I posted do not point to any great effort to force a conclusion beyond their face validity or that the prosecutor persued the issue at great length. If he did and the Israeli press ran with the speculations (evidence for that?), then that would be truthful and helpful for an understanding of the larger Arab-Israeli conflict (and the Mufti's role or lack thereof). It should then go in this and/or some other WP article on the larger conflict. Kriegman 23:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

We all know that the all palestine government was just a puppet state even for the short time it existed, however the mere fact that the Egyptians chose him as the figurehead shows that he was at least seen as hiving some influence with the palestinians.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

They weren't interested in influencing the Palestinians, but yes they chose him because of his family background and stature in Palestinian society and of course he was still chairman of the Arab Higher Committee. --Ian Pitchford 22:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, good, I think we agree on something. He was not "a major contributor to the Final Solution", he was just a nazi sympathiser with some involvment in the actual affairs. It would seem to me that killing jews was his particular interest in that buisiess, while there is no evidence that he was ever interested in, say, invading Russia or bombing London.

I don't remember anyone claiming that Egypt was interested in influensing Palestinians. In fact, one could wander if they were interested in Palestinians at all. Still, they considered the mufti a major player in the Arab Palestine, and they supported him. Which means that, for a short period of time, there was an goverment claiming to have jurisdiction over entire Israel. It was supported by many Arab countries, and was led by a nazi sympathiser. --Heptor 22:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to keep arguing the same points. Just summarise here exactly what claims you want to make in the article. I volunteer to search the sources and let you know if I find anything relevant. --Ian Pitchford 13:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

A note to Ian

With edit summary "rev vandalaims" or "footnotes" you should be doing exactly that .

But you changed the text way beyond what your "summary" sais.

This is violation of policy which mislead your fellow editors. Will not work. In fact I would say that what you did is trying to sneak-in your POV in a vandalistic way. will not work. Wikipedia is all about full disclosure of edits. Be honest with your fellow editors.

BTW, your attempt to object some web sites as "propeganda" will not work either. The info has many sources including photos which are from books.

Zeq 02:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read the edits before making such claims. The removal of the vandalism was the deletion of the word "hi" added by 68.198.222.213. The deletion of the propaganda links relating to a peripheral character has already been explained and is fully justified. You have deleted extensive sourced material on the development of forces prior to the war without explanantion in order to re-insert material from propaganda web sites. Please don't let this happen again. --Ian Pitchford 10:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You have delted sourced material without even mentioning it in talk so don't complain if people do not understand your edit. And please don't revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Zeq 10:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ian, this was your 4th revert in less than 24 hours. We have two options:

1. I will revert your revert 2. You will self revert and can merge any new info that was aadded as part of your reverts.

In any case the info about the mufty will stay it is well sourced. Zeq 10:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You forgot 3. Someone who didn't make any reverts last 24 hours makes the revert. --Heptor 10:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ian, any removal of sourced material will be reverted back in. Zeq 04:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, if so, why did you delete an entire section entitled "Security collaboration between the Yishuv and the British Empire" ? Not only did you take out sourced information, but you re-inserted the statement "The situation was not made easier by the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husayni, closely collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War" which is not sourced (meaning the part about the 'situation not being made easier'). Just curious... Ramallite ^(talk) 05:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

OK you have valid points. What is needed is to merge the two edits. Also since the colaboration of Arab forces with the British (they always colborated with both sides, a known colonilaist tactic) we need to make sure both such colborations are present. Zeq 06:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of web sites as source

There was an editor who reverted few days ago because the common wikipedia practice of using links to web sites did not suit his editing standards. I don't accept his claim web sites (which he argue are "propaganda") are a valid source and we should evaluate the specific link and data (instead of "blanket denial" of any material that come from web sites.

Yet I was suprized to see that the same editor inserted this:

http://www.allthatremains.com/Maps/MilOperOutUN.jpg

The problem with this link is that the content is too vauge (the drawing) and the words "zionist forces" imply a POV.

But let's look at the source: http://www.allthatremains.com/MissionStatement.htm - this is clearly a propaganda web site with a mission. On that, there are those who might say: "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones" or more to the core issue: Read the policy and you will see that you have no right to deny proper material from web sites. (even in your monds they are not legitimate source of info. That is your biased POV - not the policy. Zeq 12:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• To Ian: I suggest you carefully read this cause what you are now doing against policy. Zeq 06:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ian, this is another warning that your actions are violation of this policy. Zeq 07:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsuitable material to this page. Links to propaganda websites are not appropriate, nor is material from old propaganda works that have not been read or even consulted by the editors trying to insert this stuff. We now have a whole section on this peripheral character, which contains more than enough information for anyone wanting to know more. Considering that we don't have a single word on the perspective of the individual Arab states involved in the war this article is becoming decidedly unbalanced. --Ian Pitchford 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If you think they were attacked by Israel feel free to add it (and source it). I do not accept your characterization of the New York Jewish times as "propaganda" and it lists the books it uses for ref. of the facts in the article. What you are doing is disruptive. Please restore what you deleted and add any balancing fact you can source. Zeq 16:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian, I just wonder: How many times are you going to delete the same sourced info ? Zeq 21:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

How many times are you going to claim that rubbish from Zionist websites and claims with no references at all belong in an encyclopedia? --Ian Pitchford 22:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You are entitles to your views and you can present the other view on the article but not to violate WP:Point . If you think you can just drive poeple out of articles by calling their work trash or rubbish you are wrong. This is a personal attack. Zeq 04:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian, your edit summary made it look like you did something "according to heptor comments" but there were no such comments. Instead you operated according to your long disruption iof deleting sourced material from this article something you now do regularly 3 times a day (at least on some days) Zeq 03:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Zeq, look again. There's even a link to the comments. --Ian Pitchford 14:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what you are referring to, maybe I missed it (I looked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1948_Arab-Israeli_War&diff=30154316&oldid=30153402. In any case I suggest you discuss here instead of sending us on a wild goose chase. Zeq 17:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I see Heptor has deleted the comments from his talk page (which is considered bad form by the way), they read: "You have broken all of the footnotes in this article and also you have provided no source or explanation for these claims:

• The Mufti, one of the few identified leaders of the Palestinian Arabs
• In the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders
• along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history
• led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy

If you can't find a reputable historian using appropriate evidence to support these claims please do not include them in the article. You have already admitted on the talk page here that "indeed, sources should be provided", so please provide them. Additionally, much of the material is duplicated in the section already on Husayni in the article and there's no reason to repeat it. --Ian Pitchford 22:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)"

Ian, I am not part of and not aware of what you wrote about above. I insretd sources to the claims and you should not remove relevant sourced edits. That is all. Your arguments with other editors about what is or is not on their talk page are irrelevant to what we do here. Zeq 19:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian wrote:

Kriegman, I have just noticed that you have added disputed claims to this article once more. I am copying my message to Heptor and Zeq below as I suspect there is some confusion about the nature of references. --Ian Pitchford 14:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

and,

Zeq, Heptor – I’d like to clarify what is meant by a reference as you both seem to believe you have included them in the article. References to verifiable sources are normally given so that readers who are interested in a particular issue can go directly to the original source to verify that it does in fact make that claim and/or to find out more. The claims you are adding to this article do not have sources. For example, where would a reader go to find out more about the Mufti being “one of the few identified leaders of the Palestinian Arabs”? Where would a reader go (i.e., author, publication and page number) to find the specific claim that the Mufti made “radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemies” and how would they find and verify the specific quotation given? At the moment there is just a link to two entire books. It’s not clear whether the quotation is in both books and if it is, there are no page references to make it easy to find the specific quotation. What source would a reader consult to verify that in “the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history) led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy.” Who's making reference to the Holocaust? Who claims that the <ufti was “violently anti-Semitic”; who claims that there was a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy? Without sources readers have no reason to accept these claims and no way of checking them. --Ian Pitchford 14:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The specific claims you are disputing were made by me, so I will respond. Regarding the problem of Palestinian leadership, I would cite numerous sources that show that the Mufti was a recognized, major leader, including Mattar: despite what you claim, it has been amply documented that the Mufti was a major leader. Regarding the lack of clearly identified leadership, I could also cite numerous sources, foremost among them being Ian Pitchford who has documented (using sources) the chaotic state of Palestinian organization and the lack of clear leadership in this period. A clearly identified leader in a chaotic situation in which no overall leadership was formed---and in which you have only listed one possible contender (the primary leader of the poorly formed Palestinian military alliance)---indicates that the Mufti was one of two? three? (if so, who), or four? (again, if so who) identified leaders.

For the next claim re: radio broadcasts, the books and page numbers are on this talk page above. You can follow the links given above and read the actual pages yourself. Page numbers can be added when the edit war dies down and we don't have to recreate every improvement to the article every few hours. The violent antisemitism of the Mufti is in those books as well as numerous other books (I can think of three more, off hand). I thought it was obvious from the quotations and his Nazi collaboration. Indeed, I think the facts speak for themselves and putting in a quotation regarding his antisemitism---which again can be done if that is part of a solution that will end this edit war and won't have to be recreated every few hours---would be insulting to readers who can see the face validity of the statement.

The notion that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy is in numerous retrospective reports discussing the "push them into the sea" notion. I believe I can find numerous specific citation linking the Holocaust aftermath to this belief. Again, this can be done (if really necessary) after the edit war dies down, though I believe it would be a mistake as documenting the obvious makes the Wikipedia seem pedantic and patronizing to the reader.

Regarding references and the use of web sources, I think Ian has some points here. Some of the web references should be eliminated or we open up the use of innumerable sources for all sorts of claims. However, as noted, web sources are not all equal, just as books are not all equal. The authorities Ian cites are often clearly, highly biased. However, if they have an academic position and must be able to defend their scholarship, they typically don't just make up facts. Rather, they leave out inconvenient facts and color their interpretations of what they report to suit their bias, e.g., Mattar.

So we have a problem. Books aren't necessarily less biased. But if a mainstream university is standing behind an academic's scholarship, it is unlikely that he/she is just making things up. In general, that means we should trust factual statements in such books (even if they are also written for propaganda purposes) more than web sites and pure propaganda tracts. So some negotiation is in order over the sources we cite. We need to negotiate this on this talk page and to end blanket reversions that make incremental changes impossible. Kriegman 16:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

To summarise, you have no evidence to cite other than a photocopy of pages 150-151 of a book by Schechtman [9] giving a quotation that you want to use and another photocopy of something that can't be identified, but is supposed to be a book by Pearlman supporting the existence of the same quotation [10]. Other than that everything you want to add to the article is attributable to you and no one else. Is that right? --Ian Pitchford 16:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kriegman. The Mufti was even described by Yassar Araffat as the leader of the Palestinian army in 1948. There are many citation and Ian can not use a new yardstick to disallow facts he does not want in the article but keep others he wants (in this and in the nakba article. On the other hand I welcome Ian's willingness to discuss instead of just disrupt and any compromise that Kriegman and Ian would agree to will bind me as well. Zeq 18:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, you still aren't citing any sources. We have compromised by including a whole section on the Mufti. We aren't going to have yet another section on him including claims without references. If that concession is made then it implies that anything can be added to any article by any editor. --Ian Pitchford 18:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There are now 15 sources, many of them cite books and other sources. Enough Ian. You asked for sources, you got them. Let's move on. I dod not accept your interpretation to Wikipedia rules. If you do not agree with the methods which are used in this article and are common for refernce do what ever you feel you should do. Any delete of source material will be restored. If you suggest an alternative way to summerize the info on the mufti from these 15 web sites we will listen but if you remove the material factsthat are there now I will restore these facts. Zeq 19:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid not Zeq. There are still no references at all for the claims made about the Mufti as I have explained on your talk page [11]. You must cite verifiable, reliable sources rather than material from websites. Anybody can post material on the web and claim that they have read the sources. --Ian Pitchford 19:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. There are. If Wikipedia can not use Web sites 99% of articles could not exist. If you have sources saying the Mufti was not Nazi, that he did not lead his people in calls for kicking the jews to the sea please feel free to Bring the other POV. As for the material that is now in the article it is well sourced, I suggest you spend your time reading it I am sure it will teach you an important chapter in History. May I recomend the "self inflicting Nakba" for example? Zeq 19:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian: What we now do here is guard this article against your attempts to vanadalize it. In Wikipedia most vandalizing attempts are discovered and fixed. Your test has workd, Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Zeq 04:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, your edits

Zeq, please respond to the questions I posted on your talk page here --Ian Pitchford 19:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I responded already in the relevant talk page and left you a note where to find my Reply which was:

I agree with Kriegman. The Mufti was even described by Yassar Arafat as the leader of the Palestinian army in 1948. There are many citation and Ian can not use a new yardstick to disallow facts he does not want in the article but keep others he wants (in this and in the nakba article. On the other hand I welcome Ian willingness to discuss instead of just diruppt and any compromise that Kriegman and Ian would agree to will bind me as well. Zeq 18:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

To Zeq: as biased as Ian appears to be (to you and me), I think he honestly believes he is being objective. I think he believes that the facts show that---more than is typically expected in violent conflict---the Palestinians have been brutally mistreated by nasty, deceptive Israelis who have bamboozled the world into seeing them as the defensive victims of Arab aggression and antisemitism. Putting aside the facts that (outside the US) the world seems to see the situation in the opposite light, and that the Israelis have committed less violence against the Palestinians then would be expected by an overwhelming military force (the third strongest army in the world after the US and China, I believe) in a similar historical situation in which the weaker side continues to inflict terrible damage on the stronger side, Ian seems intent on straightening out the "anti-Arab Jewish propaganda." While I believe he is factually wrong in his view, he does have some points and we may need to struggle with them, even if it makes us uncomfortable.

To everybody: in order to end this edit war at some point, it behooves all of us to avoid sarcasm even though we feel the other is simply trying disrespectfully to strongarm his bias into the article.

Regarding the reference, Ian, you are suggesting outright fraud on the part of the French fellow who maintains the web site and posted the Pearlman jpg. While it is possible, in the course of investigating this issue, I have been in direct communication with him numerous times and it seems unlikely to me. If you don't believe him, why don't you ask him if he can provide evidence that the page is from the Pearlman book? If you want me to do it, I will. But in the meantime, it seems that we would be highly biased in demanding every source that might mitigate anti-Israeli sentiment be photocopied from a book and the photocopy must be verified, or that quotations must be directly heard by the sources who report them (as demanded above), etc.

There is a high likelihood (i.e., a certainty) that your highly thorough scholarship applied in a one-sided fashion biases this article. You scour sources and insert information supporting an anti-Israeli view (even if those sources are known to be biased) while leaving out (or not presenting as strongly) information from those and other equally valid (and biased) sources that would balance the picture. Because your scholarship is truly diligent, people who cannot keep up with you don't check out each source you cite and the manner in which you use it to the same degree that you challenge pro-Israeli notions. The result is that pro-Palestinian points inserted by dedicated, biased researchers (like you and Zero) receive relatively little scrutiny, while you and Zero jump all over any pro-Israeli notion with all sorts of claims of bias and raise the bar much higher than it is for pro-Palestinian notions.

Note that I am not suggesting we lower the bar for verification. I am suggesting that because of the presence of two "extreme researchers" in the creation of this article---both of whom have an editing pattern that is unmistakably strongly pro-Arab in a disputed area where the truth almost certainly lies in the middle---this article is almost certain to be biased against Israel. The solution is for us to challenge you and Zero as carefully as you challenge us. We have to go to the sources. See how biased they are. See how you are using (and if you are misusing them). And find other equally valid sources that present the other side.

Unfortunately, this will take time. In the meantime, we have a problem. While we cannot lower the bar for accepting sources, we also do not want the Wikipedia to become a propaganda source for the most fanatic editors who can bias articles with overwhelmingly detailed (but highly biased) research. So we have to negotiate point by point and compromise. If you raise challenges to those sources, as you are doing with the Pearlman pages, we have to do the research to verify them (i.e., come up to the level of the bar). However, you and Zero cannot simply delete anything you disagree with, while we are responding to your challenges and coming up with plenty of reasonable sources.

And, Ian, you cannot keep presenting scholarly sources from very biased partisans as if academic positions indicate correctness and overall accuracy in the history created. While academia can to some degree protect against outright fraud and lying, it certainly does not eliminate bias; noted scholars are often wrong and even more often (like almost always?) have an ax to grind. So you cannot hide bias behind academia or use a finding of bias to proclaim inaccuracy and dismiss the source. The issue is far more complicated than that. Even though I agree with some of your concerns regarding sources, a compromise between your position and Zeq's is in order. And that compromise has to be based on some scrutiny of each source, rather than categorical rejections. Kriegman 19:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As i said: The edits are not "mine". They were addd by someone else and I just added sources when Ian claimed they ar not sourced. If we will accpet ian new crtiria we can just delete all articles about the israel-Palestine conflict and start new with Ian's new rules. I have said before that I will agree to a compromise that would keep essential facts such as why would the jews fearfull from someone who ciooperated with the Nazis and suggest kicking them out to the sea, when that person is the leader of some of their enemies. Zeq 19:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I must say that after reading Kriegman full note I wonder: How come Wikipedia mechanism seem to fail when it comes to the Israeli-palestinina conflict ? and why no one seems to care ? Zeq 19:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

None of this helps Kriegman, because you haven't offered any sources at all, good or bad, for the bulk of your claims. I don't care what you add to the article as long as it is relevant; that you have a good source and that you give the full reference. Please respond to my questions about sources posted on your talk page here --Ian Pitchford 19:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian, your questions were answered. So Ian, what do you think we should do: Accept your biased edits all over wikipedia and delete everything that does not fit your POV - all that just because you insist ? Th answer is : No. You asked for sources. You got them. Time to move on. Zeq 19:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq, please point out the sources for each claim identified on your talk page here. --Ian Pitchford 20:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian, the Pearlman source was given above. I then responded to your critique of it with suggestions and an offer, both of which you seem to have ignored and then, in bold, wrote you haven't offered any sources at all. It is impossible to engage in a dialogue if I respond to you and then you ignore the response and merely reiterate your claim, with added emphasis. What is it you really want? Kriegman 20:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian, We are not in any court, and you are NOT cross exmining a hostile witness. I refused to be asked in this way. Zeq 20:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq,Kriegman. I am talking about the questions asked of both of you on your talk pages. Are you going to provide sources for those claims or not? Only claims supported by references can remain in the article. --Ian Pitchford 21:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources has been provided. I refuse to accept your tone (bold considred shouting) and the constant abuse. You asked for sources, they are now in the article. Zeq 21:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Then please list the references supporting each claim mentioned here. I am glad to endorse the addition of all relevant material supported by reliable sources. What is the problem? --Ian Pitchford 21:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is at first you edit-faught, then you declare that web sites are not verifaibale sources. and now you think you can "shout" at us with bold to get it your way ? No. We are civilized people, you asked for sources, we provided them. Move on. Zeq 22:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the last time I am going to ask you before referring the matter to the Arbitration Committee. Are you going to abide by Wikipedia policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V? If you cite credible sources for the changes you have made I will support them. --Ian Pitchford 09:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking to me ? If so first be polite and civil. second I have made no changes other then provide sources for edits which were here before and you reverted in the argument of "no sources" and later " sources that I don't accept" Fell free to "refer it to the arbcom", indeed your behaviour, not just in this issue but also your personal attcks and the edit war should be reviwed by someone with maturity. You have been suggested by Kriegman another alternative (which I support):

Review the sources we provide. (all 15 of them) If based on these sources, you feel the text does not correctlu summerized the sources (after that is all we do here, since we do notdo our own research) feel free to suggust an alternative text, discuss it is talk. If you and Kriegman will reach an agreement I will accept this agreement. So there you have it: Although you are in the minority I am giving you the ability to infulance 50%. Work it out with Kriegman or if you want to rush to arbcom instead of trying to resolve it using reason - be my guest. Zeq 10:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ian, you made four reverts in less then 24 hours. Please revert back --Heptor 17:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Folks, I just went to the Jerusalem Post archives in search of the article that, above I reported, I had found referenced on a web site. Not trusting biased web sites, I bought a copy of the article. This is in the article: "In his memoirs [the Mufti] wrote: "Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: 'The Jews are yours.' " Sarah Honig. Jerusalem Post. Jerusalem: Apr 6, 2001. pg. 08.B

Now, unless there is some reasonable objection, I will be placing this quotation in the article as supporting the veracity of the statement he made during his Nazi broadcasts. By the way, in this article, that quotation is translated somewhat differently: "Arise, o sons of Arabia. Fight for your sacred rights. Slaughter Jews wherever you find them. Their spilled blood pleases Allah, our history and religion. That will save our honor." But I will wait for a chance to discuss this here before I put this material in the article. Kriegman 00:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that either "quotation" is accurate. Just because some journalist can copy something from a book or off the web doesn't make it suddenly become true. Sarah Honig is/was one of the JP's most right-wing commentators. Where do these quotations actually come from? The chance that Sarah Honig actually read the Mufti's diaries is nil. --Zero 01:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What you "believe" is between you and your God. here we place sourced info. If you have a source contradting the facts, this is fine. Bring all sourced info to make this article NPOV. Zeq 04:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is protected and .... No one from the reverting side seesm to accept my offer to propose a compromise.

You asked for sources. sources were given but now you have removed them and asked for protection so now that the page look like you would like to keep it you don't have any incentive in working a compromise. I guess it is not enough the assume good faith it should also be practiced. Jayjg if no compromise offer is suggested please remove the useless protaction. Zeq 08:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• BTW, what this OR has to do with anything: "Sarah Honig is/was one of the JP's most right-wing commentators. Where do these quotations actually come from? The chance that Sarah Honig actually read the Mufti's diaries is nil.--Zero 01:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)" Zeq 08:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Further on the "quotation" which seems to have originated with Susan Honig: According to her letter to Kriegman copied at [| RfAr], she got it from "transcripts" of the mufti's memoirs possessed by journalist Haviv Kanaan. I hereby offer to block myself for 6 months if anyone can prove this quotation is a fair translation of the mufti's memoirs. A proof would require a scan of the relevant Arabic page; I'll accept independent arbitration on the fairness of the translation. So here's your chance to get rid of me. As to why I don't believe it: the mufti in his memoir defended himself against charges of genocidal intention. Authors like Elpeleg describe it as a whitewash, so the chances that he admited to using the Der Sturmer-like phrase "eradicate every last Jew" is negligible. Here is what he actually write in his memoir on his reason for going to Germany:

Germany was considered friendly since it was not an imperialistic country, and since it had not harmed a single Arab or Muslim state in the past. It fought our imperialistic and Zionist enemies, and after all, your enemy's enemies are your friends. I was certain that a German victory would completely save our country from imperialism and Zionism . . . I did not cooperate with Germany for the sake of Germany, nor because of a belief in Nazism. I do not accept its principles, and this never crossed my mind. None the less, I was, and continue to be, convinced that had Germany and the Axis been victorious, then no remnant of Zionism would have remained in Palestine or the Arab states. (Elpeleg 65 with citation to Husayni memoirs; ellipsis in Elpeleg)

Also in Elpeleg's book you can also find the full text of the mufti's 1941 letter to Hitler stating his conditions for Arab support; it contains nothing like Honig's allegation. --Zero 12:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)