Talk:1920 Nebi Musa riots

message: What is being disputed exactly here? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 19:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: The fatality listing under the header is messy, does anyone have any ideas on how to clean it up? Red1 08:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: The history of the shaping of the problems in the middle east is known by far too few. The more people know about the history of the zionist movement the better they are able to make informed decisions regarding their choice of elected officials who decision impact U.S. foreign policy in that region.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.202.39 (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  importance 

message: In his biography of the Mufti, Philip Mattar writes (Page 149) : "The four cases of political violence in 1920, 1921, 1929, and 1933 were not revolts, (...) They were localized spontaneous riots that resulted in no sustained (...)"
I get this from google.books but cannot get more. Would someone have his book ? (maybe p.17 ?) Could you give me more information about what he writes exactly ? I also read that Mattar writes that the Mufti was not accused of any involvment by Palin Commission. This should be in that book. Could someone check ? Thank you Ceedjee (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for more details 

message: I endorse it. The earlier title gave a misleading impression of some year long rioting. These small incidents should not be presented as some chronic uprising spread out all over Palestine intermittently for that year. Nishidani (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian Pitchford's renaming 

message: After recent modifications, this event is presented as an inflammatory explosion of antisemitism whereas historians (from all sides) now introduce this in the context of the struggle between Jewish nationalism (zionism) and the birthing Palestinian nationalism. Care should be taken to comply with what historians write and take distance with propaganda.
The title was changed without discussion whereas it was more than 2 years in that situation (cfr discussion here above). 91.180.146.182 (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. The edit re Meinerthagen can go into his biography here, but is wholly beside the point in this article. In any case, he became intensely pro-Zionist, as his diaries show. Some work needs to be done on the historical context, and I've dropped in a sketch we can work on.Nishidani (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would recommend reading "The Meinertzhagen Mystery: The Life and Legend of a Colossal Fraud" by Brian Garfield before citing Meinertzhagen too much.  Garfield makes a very good case that a large fraction of what Meinertzhagen wrote was just made up.  Incidently, the Palin enquiry described Meinertzhagen as the most pro-Zionist British official. Zerotalk 11:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

text:  Having finished reading Garfield's book at my own recommendation, it is painful to see Meinertzhagen cited directly as a source.  Garfield proves over and over (to the point that it gets monotonous) that Meinertzhagen invented a large amount of the material in his book.  For example we quote "I had an efficient but small Intelligence Service", but Garfield says that he didn't run agents at all.   It also isn't true that Meinertzhagen "became" pro-Zionist, he was actually the most vocal British supporter of the Zionists at the Paris peace conference of the previous year and was appointed to his position in Palestine at the recommendation of Chaim Weizmann.  (However, that is not the reason for treating him as unreliable; the reason is that he has been proved an inveterate liar.) Zerotalk 09:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done. I had memories of his pro-Zionism stance at the Paris Conference which felt odd compared to what historians (Katz, Karsh et al.) reported from his memoirs, but couldn't pin it down. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pov 

message: I removed this: "Al-Husayni demanded that the Zionist Commission be disbanded, its leaders expelled and Jabotinsky brigades be disbanded. The demand was ignored by the British military administration.ARABS TAKE ACTION AGAINST ZIONISTS; Demand Commission Be Suppressed and Threaten Massacre--Allenby Takes a Hand"
Reason: The source does not support this text. As well as not mentioning al-Husayni at all, the newspaper story is just a report of what the Zionist commission claimed to have been "reliably informed" about.  It source says so explicitly and does not claim to have checked any of it. There is almost no evidentiary value here, certainly nowhere near enough to satisfy WP:RS.  We must not report unverified claims of one side of a dispute as facts. Any significant true facts here will be covered by the works of historians. Zerotalk 23:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This source is simply way too obscure and weak for inclusion.  Find these events in a history book or leave them out. Zerotalk 09:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Zero0000. I add that all this is tiring. Our request is obvious. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic source 

message: Efraim Karsh writes in Palestine Betrayed pg. 40:
"...the Jerusalem pogrom of April 1920... was carried out not in the name of Palestine's independence but under the demand for its incorporation into Faisal's kingdom."
Perhaps this alternative perspective should be mentioned somewhere in the article?
Unchartered (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agenda of riots 

message: The sentence that begins with "In its wake, sheikhs of 82 villages..." has several problems:
*It appears only in the lead and not the body of the article, which is a violation of LEAD.
*It says they protested the violence, while the source says they protested the demonstrations, which is a violation of V.
*It doesn't include the fact the source notes that such statements were sometimes procured with bribes, which is a violation of NPOV.
Would someone like to fix this or should I just remove that sentence? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that in context "demonstrations" and "violence" have different meanings, but it could be changed to "demonstrations".  On your last point, Segev does not seem to directly address the 1920 statement, as the paragraph is apparently about the 1922 telegrams/cables. I think it would be SYNTH for us to connect the two things when Segev does not. Zerotalk 08:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, while you replied, I looked at Segev and edited in a paraphrase. My impression is that Segev does connect the two, but I may be wrong. In any case, the lead remark needs expansion lower down.Nishidani (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several related problems 

message: Segev writes: "In the wake of the 1920 riots in Jerusalem, the sheikhs of 82 villages around that city and Jaffa issued a statement protesting the demonstrations against the Jews. They claimed to represent 70 percent of the population and expressed allegiance to the British. Among other things, they stated that they did not see any danger in the Zionist settlement. The leaders of the Druze village Daliat al-Carmel, southeast of Haifa, stated that the settlement by Jews would bring great benefit to everyone in the land. Similar cables were dispatched in 1922 to the British colonial secretary, in opposition to the activity of the Arab delegation in London... According to Friedman, it looks like the delivery costs of the Arab telegrams in support of Zionism were covered by the World Zionist Organization. But the files of the Zionist Archive also chronicle many efforts by Zionist Arabists to obtain Arab declarations of support in return for actual bribes." 
This is a fine mess of facts, but it still doesn't support the statement that "The sheikhs protesting the riots, and telegramming [sic] later [in 1922?] the British colonial secretary to express solidarity with the Zionist programme were sometimes bribed to state this position by the World Zionist Organisation. Their opinions were procured." One can at most write that there was an effort on behalf of the Zionists to secure Arab statements of support with bribe, based on this source. Whatever weight was placed on the Nebi Musa riots in the telegrams of 1922 (after the massacre in Jaffa) must have been very little. I don't think it belongs in the aftermath section of this article. Perhaps a better source can be found in the late prof. Friedman's book.
Further, Segev evidently has the petitions mixed up. Two petitions were sent by sheikhs of the Abu-Gosh clan, in which they claimed to represent "the majority, in numbers 70% and in land and property 90%," and demanded that the "administration and government be under the mandate of Great Britain," finally stating that there was "no danger to [their] interests, public or private, in Zionist immigration." The first petition was sent on March 23, carrying the names and seals of 142 mukhtars, and the second on March 28, carrying those of 121 mukhtars. This was prior to the violence in Jerusalem, not "in the wake of the riots" as Segev writes - and it is quite evident from the wording (70%, danger of Zionism) that he was referring to the same documents. Both petitions were addressed to the Chief Administrator, with whom the notables also requested a private audience, and he transmitted them to Herbert Samuel who was still in London. They weren't cabled ("telegramed") to Bols, but rather delivered by mail - from Jerusalem (Damascus Gate) to Jerusalem (Administration headquarters). Whether the Chief Administrator of the Occupied Enemy Territory South had to rely on the World Zionist Organization for transmission fees to the High Commissioner in London - I cannot tell. An earlier petition of similar nature was sent by Muslim, Christian and Druze mukhtars of the Safed district on March 20.
On March 30 the Abu-Gosh sheikhs also sent a letter of protest against clubs of "young and tendentious men" from "the cities" who claimed to speak on behalf of the rural majority. A classified assessment of the petitions found the names listed to be "persons of no importance whatsoever," as they were without "prestige or influence," and reported a "strong suspicion" of bribery by Yehoshua Hankin.
Finally, following the violence in Jerusalem, a statement was sent to general Bols by the Abu-Gosh sheikhs for transmission to the Prime Minister in London. In it they condemned the riots and proclaimed their support of Zionism, citing their petitions as evidence. Bols again referred it to Samuel in London. This is, to my knowledge, the only telegram sent in the wake of the riots - i.e. April 1920. But primary sources yada yada --ארינמל (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Aftermath

message: Two accounts of the riots were published by John Patterson in 1922. The second was by a "senior British officer," and could perhaps be quoted in the article, as it describes the initial outbreak near the Jaffa gate.--ארינמל (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: 4–7 April 1920, Old City

message: The article says that " comparison was made between racist, anti -Semitic Eastern European pogroms , with the colonial adventure and ethnic exclusivity " that is Zionism. The word "colonial" is incorrectly applied to a native people coming back to its homeland, especially after the expulsion of Jews from Israel by Romans, Christians and Moslems( including Haj Amin Husseini, who planned to murder Mandate Palestinian Jews in a German - aided Holocaust). And with the long history of British, American, and other Christian Friends of Zion- Friends numbering some50 million today- "ethnic exclusive " is untrue,- and I demand that it and the term colonial be removed Docaryeh1989 (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The given source supports this and quotes Jabotinsky saying "Zionist colonization...". The source also says "manifestly exclusionary, and often deeply racist" in describing the Zionist project. If you want to bring alternative sources that say it wasn't like this, please do so. In general, we need sources for articles, personal opinions of editors are insufficient.Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That comic book cliché rant hardly warrants being taken seriously. Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  British complicity in Nebi Mussa Riots 

message: “In its wake, sheikhs of 82 villages around the city and Jaffa, claiming to represent 70% of the population, issued a document protesting the demonstrations against the Jews. This condemnation may have been procured with bribes. [4]”
—Edit: the source is no longer down, but I’m unable to view more than about 2 paragraphs in the article , and can’t find the claim that there may have been bribery involved in this condemnation. https://www.haaretz.com/2012-04-06/ty-article/when-zionism-was-an-arab-cause/0000017f-e219-df7c-a5ff-e27b00310000 EgyptianBlue22 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I can read it all, and can confirm that this is a fair report. Zerotalk 07:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I was also going to bring this up. when you go to the reference its behind a registration wall, which most people aren't going to do for a one time visit to a site they have never or may never go to again. is there any way to maybe find the article on wayback before it was walled? or maybe  place where the article isn't behind a registration wall? i mean its more of an inconvenience for someone like myself, but you know what people are like and it'll end up being well i couldn't read the rest of the article, and cuz i couldn't see it that means i didn't see proof of that point so it mustn't be true tbh, its not a wikipedia problem, its a problem with the site putting it behind a wall like that, and not just letting people read the info fro free....like wikipedia does. D0S81 (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheikh condemnation of anti-Jewish demonstrations