Okay, my turn now with a late reply.
What's of course important about all this is that there's no uniform "Arab World", but a number of societies, which are again heterogenous in themselves. Especially the elites/general population and urban/rural divides seem quite relevant to me when it comes to the developments of that time. What can be generally said imo, is that among intellectuals and elites pro-axis sympathies, influence of fascist ideology and European-style antisemitism were relevant (not necessarily all at once in every case). Although - as I said - the extent and impact is often disputed among academics when it comes to a specific case. Popularity among the wider population is indeed much harder to determine, and there are indications that such sentiments might have mostly gained in mass appeal post-WW II, rather than during the war itself.
From this perspective, "relevant" or "significant" aren't all-encompassing notions regarding societies, because they are not measured on population percentages, but political agency (which was vastly different for different people). "Popular" is quite definite though, and the concession of my last post applies here, of course.
For me, neither of the terms "significant" and "popular" implicates such a gross generalisation. I've also explicitly said I don't want to make one, have referenced to the dividedness in scholarly opinion right away and then once again, and suggested to ask someone with much more expansive knowledge, all over the course of three short posts. That should be enough for a reader not to come to that conclusion, imo.
So while I can agree with some parts of the objection, with this is one I can't.
As I said before, the only way I see is trying to create a plausible picture from existing accounts and historiography.
What's of course important about all this is that there's no uniform "Arab World", but a number of societies, which are again heterogenous in themselves. Especially the elites/general population and urban/rural divides seem quite relevant to me when it comes to the developments of that time. What can be generally said imo, is that among intellectuals and elites pro-axis sympathies, influence of fascist ideology and European-style antisemitism were relevant (not necessarily all at once in every case). Although - as I said - the extent and impact is often disputed among academics when it comes to a specific case. Popularity among the wider population is indeed much harder to determine, and there are indications that such sentiments might have mostly gained in mass appeal post-WW II, rather than during the war itself.
From this perspective, "relevant" or "significant" aren't all-encompassing notions regarding societies, because they are not measured on population percentages, but political agency (which was vastly different for different people). "Popular" is quite definite though, and the concession of my last post applies here, of course.
I don't think that last bit is a fair representation of what I've written.
For me, neither of the terms "significant" and "popular" implicates such a gross generalisation. I've also explicitly said I don't want to make one, have referenced to the dividedness in scholarly opinion right away and then once again, and suggested to ask someone with much more expansive knowledge, all over the course of three short posts. That should be enough for a reader not to come to that conclusion, imo.
So while I can agree with some parts of the objection, with this is one I can't.
In the end that formula is a compromise as well imo, decidedly neutral, but even more unspecific as a consequence. But I think it's both possible and desirable to be more specific.
