User:Kriegman/1948-War-RfArb-Comment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the rest of my statement on the RfArb on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The statement there was truncated because it exceeded the 500 word limit. If the RfArb is accepted, I believe the rest of this statement is essential for understanding what the issues are.

Contents 1 Kriegman statement, continued 1.1 Response to Ian Pitchford and Zero0000, continued 1.2 Addendum to respond to Zero's distortion of what I presented above 1.3 Responses to Ramallite 1.4 Another response to Fred Bauder

[edit] Kriegman statement, continued

[edit] Response to Ian Pitchford and Zero0000, continued

Examining their edits, it became clear that Zero and Pitchford scour the sources---in a quite scholarly, i.e., diligent, fashion---and cull out of them anything that can be taken to cast aspersions on Israel and create a picture of innocent Palestinian victimhood. The bias is quite profound. Starting with their rejection of Davis and Decter because of their associations, while embracing Mattar despite his associations, we can go on from there and see quite a pattern of bias.

For example, after I accepted Zero's critique, I found another source for an equally important call for annihilation of the Jews during one of the Mufti's Nazi broadcasts from Germany. This time the date and place and words were specified. But these authors were no good (Pearlman's 1948 book and Schechtman's later book) because they, too, had associations to Zionist figures. Meanwhile, Ian starts introducing more biased statements into the article from Arab scholars, while reverting any references from Pearlman, Schechtman, and/or Davis & Decter, and while footnoting (with a statement that it is not verified) Sachar's claim of another Arab leader's call for a genocidal war.

Then we were told that we don't even know if Pearlman actually wrote what I reported, even though I had provided links to jpg pictures of the pages from Pearlman's book. How did we really know they were from Pearlman's book? I had contacted the scholar who maintained the French website where the jpgs were posted. Based on our interaction and my examination of his site, I was quite sure of his integrity. But I suggested that Ian ask him for some verification, if he still doubted. I offered to ask him for the verification if Ian did not feel comfortable doing it. There was no response from Ian.

The claim also was made that Pearlman hadn't actually heard the Mufti's broadcasts himself! While this may or may not have been true, the standard for anything that was pro-Israel was becoming bizarrely stringent. Not only did we have to prove that our sources were impeccable scholars, but they had to be direct witnesses to the events they described in their historical works. On that basis, almost all historical works would have to be thrown out.

Finally, I found a reference by an Israeli reporter in a respected newspaper (The Jerusalem Post). She provided a slightly different translation of the same speech and also claimed that the Mufti had written in his memoirs:

"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.'"

This was rejected by Zero who claimed:

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)

So I contacted Honig and asked her about Zero's allegations. This is from her responses:

If your interlocutor thinks it lacks credibility because of my assumed right-wing orientation that would be a real irony. Because I wrote about the Mufti I gained a right-wing reputation and because I gained a right-wing reputation whatever I wrote about the Mufti can be dismissed as propaganda.

Bottom line - the mufti wins and I lose. This isn't just a vicious cycle it's a manifestation of ongoing relentless anti-Jewish bias plain and simple on part of whoever it was you communicated with. Whatever the Jew says is suspect and the Genocide-promoter is given the benefit of high-minded doubt.

Please tell that guardian of universalist conscience that the Mufti was a wanted war criminal sought by Allies post-war (like Mengele, Borman et al - or were they too presumed innocents only accused by propagandist Jewish right-wingers?). Also tell him that both my quotes come from Yad Vashem (or is that outfit by virtue of being Jewish and Israeli suspect of tendentiousness?). …

This isn't esoteric information but material which is readily known and available in Israel. I didn't discover a new planet. Neveretheless, because you perhaps come from where this all might seem new and esoteric … I'll elaborate.

The Mufti's Memoirs are available both in Hebrew and in the original Arabic (which I read proficiently) in Israel. They can be found in all major research and scholastic libraries.

Your Wikipedia interlocutor doubted I actually read them, but I must disappoint him. I DID read them!!! I read Hebrew transcripts possessed by Haviv Kanaan, a highly important authority whom I mention in previous correspondence with you.

I at a later date went up to Yad Vashem. There are archives there open to the public. Folks can sit down in reading rooms and peruse material. There I read the memoirs in ARABIC!

I am only reporting a small part of what she wrote; I strained Ms. Honig's generosity with my constant questions of every little detail of her scholarship; I knew that Zero and Ian would try to find some way to discredit everything she said.

I hope this gives some sense of how one-sided this debate and the article have become. The pro-Israeli sources are subjected to over-the-top scrutiny while pro-Arab sources are routinely accepted as authoritative. There is even one instance on the talk pages of the article (about 2/3's of the way down Archive 2, in a section entitled "Zero's bias") of Zero accurately noting an error I made, but doing so in such a way as to discredit the valid information I was reporting. Since Zero seems to have been fully versed in the nature of the error---i.e., he is highly likely to have known why I made the error (it is repeated ad infinitum in numerous pro-Israeli sources) and that there was still some valid information when the error was removed---this seems like a dishonest manipulation.

Zero postures as if he is an objective seeker of truth, when he is incredibly biased with a legacy of thousands of anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish edits (some quite subtle, and, as far as content contributions to articles, very, very little else in the Wikipedia) that have succeeded in biasing many, if not most, articles on Jews and Israel. While he has added valid content (as in any conflict in which there are opposing points of view that each contain considerable validity, not all anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish material is false, even if it is presented in a one-sided and thus biased fashion), the relentless one-sided nature of his editing has contributed to making the Wikipedia look quite anti-Jewish/Israel.

He has been careful enough about the way in which he made these edits so that the Wikipedia made him an administrator! True, he had his administrative privileges temporarily revoked---and he abused his administrative privileges in this debate by locking the article in an interaction that was quite similar to what led to his having his privileges revoked---but he has managed to continue to bamboozle many Wikipedians into believing he is an objective editor.

Ian is quite different. Also a diligent scholar and also as relentlessly biased as Zero, he seems less manipulative in his presentation of the material. His bias seems more profoundly invisible to him, and thus more obvious in his edits. Indeed, in several instances, which are on the talk pages (current and Archive 2), he diligently presented researched material that supported the view he was presenting the material to oppose, and he seemed to have no idea.

Zero's characterization of Zeq is somewhat ironic, given that "obsessive POV-pusher" applies to Zero. Zero and Ian have some valid points when it comes to Zeq's edits, but (1) Zeq is not a native English speaker and so some of his phrasing may be off due to that and (2) he has shown a willingness to negotiate and to be bound by the decisions of others who are not so embroiled in this edit war. In any case, a careful review of his edits and his talk contributions shows that he is certainly a serious editor who is trying to negotiate and follow the rules. In contrast, even in a RfArb, Zero characterizes the other side's edits as "gutter rhetoric."

Zero's version of the Mufti quotation is clearly not the one quoted by Pearlman, Fisk, Yad Vashem, or Honig. (Zero does refer to a brief report in Arabic that is not present in the scan he posted.) In any case, it was I who wanted to present the notion that the Jews, and much of the rest of the world, in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust and up against truly murderous/genocidal Arab leaders such as the Mufti, believed they were fighting a war to prevent their annihilation. I did not, and no one did, claim that it was "a war of Israel versus genocidal fiends." This mischaracterization of the debate is typical of Zero: The debate was about whether the Israelis believed it was a genocidal war and whether there was any basis for such a belief in the rhetoric of the Arab leaders.

Indeed, my view of the war was strongly influenced by both Zero's and Ian's scholarship that suggested that the perception of Israel as an underdog facing an overwhelming genocidal enemy was erroneous. I even wondered if this perception was fostered by Israeli military leaders to make the Jews feel more desperately cornered. In any case, it was clearly fostered by the Arab leaders who wanted their fighters to be confident of an easy victory (and this may have been a clear tactical mistake on their part). But the point is that Zero's mischaracterization of the debate is typical. Kriegman 17:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum to respond to Zero's distortion of what I presented above

Zero responsed to what he claimed I had written:

I'd like to thank Kriegman for quoting Honig's admission that she didn't get her "quotation" directly from the mufti's memoirs but from "transcripts possessed by" (journalist) Haviv Kanaan. I have explained why her claim is unbelievable at Talk:1948 Arab-Israeli War (search for "Honig") and, in a dramatic flourish, offered to block myself if I'm wrong. --Zero 12:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC

This is not what I wrote, as can be seen by simply reading what is on this page. Honig stated, unequivocally, "I read the memoirs in ARABIC!" I'm not sure what Zero's problem is as I am fairly certain that English is his first language. The reference to Kanaan clearly refers to an earlier email, the content of which I did not present here because my statement was already too long. This is the context in which she mentioned Kanaan in the earlier email that was referenced in the email I presented above:

Wow - I don't even know where to begin. I am afraid that my sources for all Mufti material come from the Hebrew.

They are so numerous that it is in fact difficult to even know what to home in on. Any Israeli newspaper archive of the period (like Davar) was full of translations of the Mufti's speeches and harangues.

Much of what I know moreover is supported by personal testimonies of folks of my parents' generation. Anyone in Eretz Yisrael at the time heard the Mufti ad nauseam, saw his minions "Heil Hitlering," flying Nazi flags ansd decorationg their homes with portraits of fuehrer and swastikas. They called Hitler "Abu Ali" and waited for him.

mu (sic) favorite source is by the late Ha'aretz journalist Haviv Kanaan. He was a police officer during the days of British Mandate and made it his life's mission to record all the goings-on of the period, especially the Arab collaboration with the Nazis. He kept detailed journals throughout and collected material and documentation at the time. Two of his books are my favorite sources, both excellent books - THROUGH THE EYES OF A PALESTINIAN POLICEMAN (Masada Publishing, 1980) and 200 DAYS OF ANXIETY (Mol-Art, 1974). Both, alas, are in Hebrew.

Veteran Israelis who understood Arabic themselves used to hear the Mufti's tirades broadcast on the radio. He never tried to disguise his murderous agenda and neither did the Arab states who offered him assylum post-war when he was a wanted war criminal. [emphasis added]

While it might be possible to misunderstand Honig's statement (that was presented without the earlier context to which she referred) to indicate that she got the quotations from Kanaan's transcripts and that this is counter to what she had claimed elsewhere, there are several problems with this distortion. First, no one, including Honig ever claimed that she sat in front of a radio and heard the Mufti's Nazi broadcasts from Germany or his calls to genocide in Israel. So she had to get them from someone's transcripts. If she used Yad Vashem's or Kanaan's, how is this an "Ahah! I gotchya!" What was she supposed to use? Second, a translation of the Mufti's memoirs is not a "transcript," a word which refers to speeches that Kanaan wrote down. Third, she made it rather clear that she read the memoirs in Arabic. I must admit, I am a bit surprised that Zero would make such a misinterpretation when anyone can read the original material presented above. It makes me wonder about his other interpretations that have colored so many articles in the Wikipedia on this and related subjects. Kriegman 21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to Ramallite

Ramallite wrote:

this dispute deals with some editors of Wikipedia feeling that the inclusion of such a phrase that is commonly believed to have been said, but may actually not have been, in a Wikipedia article will only contribute to the continued propagation of a 'lie' which others can use to support their (often unfriendly) opinions or ideologies. These editors (myself included) prefer that Wikipedia not be yet another source that propagates unreliable but commonly believed information, and that it hold itself to a higher standard. On the other hand, editors who support the inclusion of this phrase rely on the notion that, despite the possibility of the quotation being false, the fact that it is generally believed is enough reason to include it since it is the reason why Israelis 'believed that they were facing a genocidal enemy'.

Please note that if the quotations could not be verified, the idea that they should still be included in the article was to present a view of how the 1948 war is understood by many people, including virtually one entire side of the conflict. In the event that we could not find sufficient verification, any such presentation in the article would have to be coupled with a clear statement that the quotations cannot be verified and that there is considerable dispute as to their accuracy. This would make the Wikipedia article more complete and would in no way contribute to propagating false information; if anything, the article would be one of the only sources that would contribute to the challenging of any facile assumptions about the veracity of the "alleged" quotations. However, we have moved far beyond Pearlman and Schechtman as our only sources. We now have Honig, Yad Vashem, and Fisk (hardly a source biased toward Israel). This is certainly more than would be required in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles.

Indeed, I would cite Mattar's biography of the Mufti as another source, of sorts. I do not have access to it (though I am pretty sure Ian and Zero do). I have read that Mattar's scholarly biography of the Mufti left out what everyone in this debate has conceded: The nature and extent of the Mufti's Nazi collaboration. If this is so, we know that Mattar is not above biasing the view of the Mufti that he presents. (And I am not suggesting that this should discredit Mattar as a source; I have repeatedly noted that all sources are biased.) If Mattar is presenting a somewhat whitewashed version of the Mufti---and I believe we can safely assume Mattar knows about the widespread claims about the Mufti's calls for genocide---how is it possible that he does not mention these false claims in his biography of the Mufti?

On the other hand, the truth may be as Honig suggests: Everybody knew about the Mufti's rhetoric. With the leaders of the Arab world saying similar things, what the Mufti said in Arabic to his followers just wasn't news outside of Israel. Arabs, in this view, don't dispute the quotations because they all know they occurred. Rather, Arab leaders (until recently) often tried to distance themselves from the Mufti.

In any case, I believe, for now, we have more than sufficient sources for the quotations, and that they belong in this article as part of a description of the immediate post-Holocaust political context in which the 1948 War occurred. Censoring this information distorts the article's depiction of the conflict by barring information that many people feel is crucial for understanding this war.

But I am pursuing the matter further and will try to get some English translations of Kanaan's books and/or Davar. El C, Zeq can you help with this? Kriegman 23:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another response to Fred Bauder

Fred Bauder wrote:

… The article can legitimately include strong expressions of both points of view. It can not contain an accusation of attempted genocide unless there are good sources for it … Fred Bauder 15:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Fred Bauder's reaction indicates that the issue is again being obscured. I repeat, no one ever claimed there was attempted genocide in the war. The claim was made that there were calls for genocide by major Arab leaders, which in working on this article, I have come to believe fell on relatively disinterested ears; while there were significant numbers of potential genociders (on both sides) and atrocities certainly occurred, there is no indication that there was a popular uprising of mass murderers on either side.

Rather the claim was made that there were genocidal calls to arms by major Arab figures, and that, despite the fact that the Arab population was largely not interested in killing all the Jews and was even ambivalent about the war, in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, the Jews at the time (facing an "enemy" whose population was vastly greater than their own) heard those calls for their mass murder by major Arab figures and believed—and maybe more importantly, Jews since then came to believe—that this particular war was a war aimed at their annihilation.

The truth of what "would have happened" is not an issue. That would be speculation. Despite the Mufti's (and some of his followers') documentable genocidal intentions/statements/acts, there is no evidence of what could be called "attempted genocide." That is not the issue. However, to leave out the genocidal view of the war (whether or not it is accurate) and the belief by virtually one whole side of this conflict (and many others) that the Jews would have been annihilated if they lost, is to leave out well documented facts (that such a view and such a belief exist/existed) that are crucial to how this war was understood and how it is still understood today. And there is no basis whatsoever for keeping out of the article facts, such as the calls for genocide, except maybe to make the Jews look bad.

This is the issue: Both sides claim to be horrendously and murderously treated in the conflict. The Jews claim that only their repeated success in battle prevented their annihilation. Regardless of the truth of this claim (which again, is not the issue here), in a series of Wikipedia articles, Jewish atrocities have been highlighted and presented in a way to indicate Palestinian victimhood. Meanwhile, what the Jews were facing and reacting to has been censored or downplayed, as in this debate. Why? The claim is made that it is just a question of sufficient documentation. I think a careful analysis of the facts will show that that isn't the case. Kriegman 22:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)