Trending Topics:

State Dep’t slams Netanyahu’s Hitler story as ‘inflammatory’ and against ‘scholarly evidence’

on 140 Comments

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that Hitler got the idea for the extermination of the Jews from a Palestinian leader, the mufti of Jerusalem, is continuing to draw widespread scorn, though leading American Jewish groups are trying to deemphasize the hatefulness of the comments.

Today Secretary of State John Kerry met Netanyahu in Berlin and appeared to criticize Netanyahu’s comments as a form of incitement:

We have to stop incitement, we have to stop the violence. And I think it’s critical. Obviously, this conversation that you and I will have is very important to settle on the steps that will be taken that take us beyond the condemnation and beyond the rhetoric. It is absolutely critical to end all incitement and all violence, and to find a road forward to build the possibility that is not there today for a larger process.

At yesterday’s press briefing at the State Department, State spox John Kirby characterized Netanyahu’s comments as “inflammatory” and “factually incorrect” and contradicted by “scholarly evidence.” A questioner suggested that Netanyahu was practicing Holocaust denial, but State didn’t rise to the challenge:

JOHN KIRBY: We’ve certainly seen and we’re aware of the prime minister’s statements. And as President Obama said, certainly Secretary Kerry has made clear, we want to stress publicly and privately the importance of preventing inflammatory rhetoric, accusations, or actions on both sides that can lead to violence...

QUESTION: Is it historically correct? Do you believe that —

MR KIRBY: I’m also not going to get into a historical debate about this. We’ve seen the press reports of his comments, and if you look at them they would connote that the scholarly evidence does not support that position...

QUESTION: … Come on. You stand at this podium day after day and you talk about incitement and the Palestinians incite something, and then the prime minister says something that is not only obviously factually incorrect but just so exploitative in this environment, and you’re dancing around the fact that it was inappropriate without just kind of saying what you’re hinting at, that these were inflammatory remarks that only contribute to the type of destabilization that you’re asking.

MR KIRBY: Right. No, Elise, I mean, I understand where you’re coming from. I’ve been, I think, consistent and I’m going to stay consistent that we’re not going to get into a characterization of each and every incident and each and every word spoken. What we want to see and we want – I think what we want to do is for everybody to take a few steps back, and we want to see the inflammatory rhetoric, we want to see inflammatory actions, we want to see provocative movements, all that stuff stop so that there can be an end to the violence, so that there can be some political breathing space for some real solutions.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: May I? When you go – I mean, you do say when there are Holocaust deniers and such, you’re quick to point out the inaccuracy of their statements. So I take it to mean that the reason that you’re not publicly criticizing it is because you think that this would just contribute to a bad climate of – what?

MR KIRBY: Well, I think I’m going to leave my answer the way it was. We’ve seen the press reports of the prime minister’s comments, and in those reports you can see for yourself the scholarly evidence obviously supports a different position. But again, what we – what needs to happen here and why the Secretary is going is to try to find ways – practical, tangible, concrete ways – to reduce the violence.

The Anti Defamation League has spoken out against Netanyahu’s remarks in the mildest possible manner:

J Street is soft-peddling the prime minister’s remarks. It hardly touches on them when assailing Palestinian and Israeli leaders for practicing the blame game:

“[Palestinians] don’t want a state to end the conflict; because they want a state to continue the conflict and eradicate the Jewish state. This is what this conflict has always been about,” Netanyahu said. And the Holocaust rhetoric has been ramped up, too; in the same WZC speech, Netanyahu blamed the Mufti of Jerusalem for convincing Hitler to exterminate Jews.

Alan Elsner of J Street also softly rebuked the PM in a statement yesterday that concluded, “The two sides are drowning in mutual hatred,” so the U.S. needs to play a role.

Here’s a Facebook report on Netanyahu’s travels to Berlin, from Yossi Bartal, citing the ways his Holocaust claims violate German speech regulations:

The German police just arrested an Israeli Jew in the Palestinian demo against Netanyahu for supposedly inciting antisemitism because of a sign accusing the prime minister of Holocaust denial. Update: he was released and the accusation changed to ” insulting a foreign head of state”. Another Palestinian feminist activist was arrested as well, for holding a sign with the exact citation of Netanyahu on Hitler. She was accused of “racial incitement”.

This is laughable. CNN reports on Netanyahu’s so-called liberal opposition.

Netanyahu has also been blasted in Israel. Isaac Herzog, the head of that country’s opposition Zionist Union party, said Netanyahu, through his comments, “has forgotten that he is not only the Israeli Prime Minister but also the Prime Minister of the Jewish people.”…

“This is a dangerous distortion of history and I demand that Netanyahu fix it immediately, because it trivializes the Holocaust, trivializes the Nazis and the share of the terrible dictator Adolf Hitler’s terrible tragedy of our people during the Holocaust,” Herzog wrote on his Facebook page.

Finally, a great tweet from Ben White on the Prime Minister’s record.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

140 Responses

  1. ckg on October 22, 2015, 9:56 am

    Thanks, Phil, but I think you may be reading too much into Kerry’s statement. Your quoted text of Kerry condemning all incitement was immediately preceded by Netanyahu saying

    We generally hope – we have to stop the terrorism. To stop the terrorism, we have to stop the incitement. And I think it’s time that the international community told President Abbas to stop the incitement and hold him accountable for his words and his deeds.

    In that context, Kerry was not referring specifically to the Mufti remarks but generally to all incitement. The State Department seems to be avoiding describing Netanyahu’s comment as incitement, despite considerable push-back from Matt Lee, Said Erekat, and other correspondents.

    • Boomer on October 22, 2015, 11:11 am

      “Thanks, Phil, but I think you may be reading too much into Kerry’s statement.”

      me too

    • ckg on October 22, 2015, 11:29 am

      Here is how a couple other news sources described it.

      Kerry made no reference to Netanyahu’s suggestion this week that Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem during the 1940s, persuaded Adolf Hitler to exterminate the Jews.

      Washington Post:

      Though Kerry did not specifically mention the incident, Netanyahu himself has been harshly criticized by Palestinians, opposition politicians and historians for comments he made Tuesday that the mufti of Jerusalem gave Hitler the idea of killing Jews during World War II.

    • JWalters on October 22, 2015, 7:27 pm

      ckg, your point is accurate about Kerry’s statement by itself. But I take it in the context of Kirby’s prior statement, since Kirby works for Kerry. While Kirby didn’t say Netanyahu outright lied, or was “wrong”, he did pit Netanyahu against the “scholarly evidence”, which ultimately is decisive in modern discourse.

      What Kerry added was the recognition that, by implication, Netanyau is inciting violence. It seems to me this is an important point. It extends Obama’s objections to the continuing “settlements”, and adds more weight to the question about Netanyahu’s actual intentions. Kerry is giving Israel a chance to peacefully back away from their inflammatory words and actions. If they don’t, there will be no legitimate objections to consequences that follow. These will probably be international actions, since Israel is keeping the U.S. Congress non-functional.

  2. ramzijaber on October 22, 2015, 10:40 am

    well, well, well, surprise surprise surprise NOT!

    zionists and their supporters will ALWAYS defend the criminal zionist regime and the illegal unethical unjust colonization of Palestine……the only military-occupied country in the world in this 21st century.

    we must always remember that a zionist is a zionist is a zionist. there is no “liberal” or “left” or “moderate”, just plain old criminal zionists. don’t be fooled by the use of any adjective to soften the zionist.

    again, a zionist is a zionist is a zionist.

    zionist = criminal = racist.

    the only way to fight for justice, peace, equality, liberty, civil rights, freedom, and human rights in Palestine is through MASSIVE DAILY PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATIONS across Palestine so we end up with 1S1P1V – 1 state, 1 person, 1 vote.

  3. Maximus Decimus Meridius on October 22, 2015, 10:43 am

    I must have missed this ‘slamming’.

    Another poster posted a transcript of a detailed back and forth between Matt Lee and a State Dept. spokesman. It would have been funny if it weren’t so serious. At NO point did the State Dept guy actually condemn Netanyahu’s remark. Nor did he even explicitly say it was flatout wrong – preferring to skate around the question by saying it was ‘not in line with scholarly evidence’. Matt Lee, as always, deftly pointed out the hypocrisy in the State Dept. routinely condeming Palestinians (in general) for ‘incitement’ while making a point of NOT condemning Netanyahu for – essentially – saying Palestinians were to blame for the holocaust, preferring to row back to the safety of ‘both sides must avoid inflammatory language’ nonsense.

    So, I think your article is way too kind on official America.

    • Boomer on October 22, 2015, 11:10 am

      “I must have missed this ‘slamming’. . . .
      So, I think your article is way too kind on official America.”

      Me too.

  4. Kay24 on October 22, 2015, 11:06 am

    Once again we are seeing and hearing Netanyahu causing trouble, lying, and being confronted by the international community, for being a liar. From within his own nation, to leaders outside, he has been criticized and shown how he is regarded, for this history of lies, and string of untruths, that only make him and the country he leads, look bad.

    I know Kerry is trying to be “diplomatic” and maybe trying to broker peace once again, but enough is enough. This is a vicious cycle of violence, blaming victims of an occupation, and the false excuses of Israel “defending itself” while unarmed civilians are massacred. How long is the US and the rest of the world going on with this charade? The bottom line is Israel does not want peace with it’s neighbors, they keep blaming the Palestinians for every damn thing, including their suffering. It is as if the Palestinians WANT to live in open prisons, want their lands stolen, water controlled, and WANT to suffer for years. The entire world knows the zionist game, yet the only nation that could stop this madness is the US. Being compliant to Israel’s crimes, protecting it, arming them, and justifying breaking of international laws, has made us just as guilty of those crimes, just as hated, and shows we are indeed “controlled” by the zionists.
    I hate this situation.

    • Rodneywatts on October 22, 2015, 11:50 am

      Yes Kay! What this episode has done is to remind me of what actually happened in the Mandated Territory of Palestine, when I was a boy. Certain Jews by the names of Stern and Shamir and others (Lehi and Irgun gangs) tried to do deals with the nazis to expedite the removal of British Rule in Palestine. An interesting blog by Tony Greenstein appeared in 2012 on Shamir’s death: So much for nuttyyahoo’ s muppet talk.

  5. hophmi on October 22, 2015, 11:14 am

    Palestinian leaders talk about “Jews and their filthy feet” defiling the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, and there’s a campaign of Palestinians stabbing innocent people in the street. Jews are not going to go into the street and stab Palestinians because Bibi Netanyahu made some crack about the Mufti and the Holocaust at the WZO.

    I would strongly advise you, if you care about Palestinians, not to get into a debate about the Mufti; most Palestinians I know are smart enough not to do it. Regardless of whether or not Netanyahu was repeating a controversial claim by Barry Rubin et. al. (you people are no strangers to non-mainstream controversial conspiracy theories about Jewish history and about the history of the Holocaust), there is no debate that the Mufti met Hitler, encouraged Muslims to join to Ustase, and endorsed the extermination of Jews explicitly. He was a horrible human being and a war criminal.

    There is no way Palestinians come out good when the Mufti is the subject of discussion, and if your point is that the Palestinian people had no role in the Holocaust, the best policy is to keep the Mufti out of the discussion completely.

    • annie on October 22, 2015, 11:47 am

      I would strongly advise you, if you care about Palestinians, not to get into a debate about the Mufti; most Palestinians I know are smart enough not to do it.

      oh please! more of the “most palestinians” agree w/me theory.

      There is no way Palestinians come out good when the Mufti is the subject of discussion

      i’d say this inciteful gaffe of netanyahu has worked swimmingly in palestine’s favor.

      how many times can you be wrong in one day? let us count the ways.

      • hophmi on October 22, 2015, 1:46 pm

        “oh please! more of the “most palestinians” agree w/me theory.”

        Oh, there’s no question in my mind. The only people I ever hear trying to rehabilitate the Mufti are Western activists. I’ll never forget – one time I attended a pro-Palestinian meeting that featured ISM members who had been to the West Bank. Most of them were Westerners, but Zaid Khalil was also there. This white girl from New York tried to defend the Mufti, and Zaid shut her down because he knew that she wasn’t on firm ground.

        I have no earthly idea what benefit there is to rehabilitating or defending someone like the Mufti. It seems as though you guys want to have it both ways. You protest that the Mufti was not reflective of the Palestinian people, and then you reject criticism of him.

        “i’d say this inciteful gaffe of netanyahu has worked swimmingly in palestine’s favor”

        LOL. Believe it or not, Annie, just because Mondoweiss has taken advantage of the opportunity to post what I would describe as an effectual defense of the Mufti, does not mean that any of this has helped the Palestinians. In what way has it helped, exactly? For the most part, the debate pits people who believe that he was a horrible human being versus people who believe that he was a more horrible human being. Only those extremists who view everything as a zero-sum game would mistake criticism of Netanyahu for something favorable for Palestinians.

      • annie on October 22, 2015, 5:31 pm

        I have no earthly idea what benefit there is to rehabilitating or defending someone like the Mufti.

        iow, there’s no reason to push back against the idea the Mufti came up with the Final Solution or inspired it? in your book that’s defending the mufti? btw, there’d be no reason whatsoever to have to “rehabilitate” the mufti if a bunch of zio fools were not trying to turn him into evil incarnate. seriously hops, this is ridiculous. the whole shabang is designed for pushback so propaganda junkies like your self can make claims about “rehabilitation”.

        just because Mondoweiss has taken advantage of the opportunity to post what I would describe as an effectual defense of the Mufti

        now you’re just lying hops. there’s nothing (not one sentence) remotely resembling a ‘defense’ of the mufti in the article above.

        give it a rest, you flailing around w/no anchor here — at all.

      • annie on October 22, 2015, 5:36 pm

        and another thing. no one anywhere has any doubt who the target is here and it’s not the mufti, it’s the palestinian people. the insult by netanyahu and all the limp hasbrats was trying to make him sound like some representative of the palestinian people – today. you know that. so stating his role in society accurately is not a defense of him, it’s a defense of the palestinian people.

        another #Failed effort at propaganda

      • Mooser on October 22, 2015, 3:42 pm

        “most Palestinians I know are smart enough not”

        Annie, it’s very hard for me to believe that any Palestinian person who read Hophmi’s comments here wouldn’t have an overwhelming desire to get to know him, and have heart-to-heart political and personal talks. But, of course, I couldn’t possibly know for sure.

      • annie on October 22, 2015, 4:42 pm

        lol mooser

      • Mooser on October 22, 2015, 5:40 pm

        ” just because Mondoweiss has taken advantage of the opportunity to post what I would describe as an effectual defense of the Mufti…”

        Oh wow, did I get that wrong. I guess the more “effectual” the “defense” of the Mufti, the more Arab-Nazi-ish the author must be. The facts, of course, don’t matter.

      • Mooser on October 22, 2015, 5:43 pm

        “give it a rest, you flailing around w/no anchor here”

        Is he? I thought “Hophmi” was getting Wittier and Wittier.

      • Mooser on October 22, 2015, 6:59 pm

        “Oh, there’s no question in my mind.” “Hophmi”

        No, as long as I’ve been reading your comments, there never has been. If ever a guy justified quoting Emerson correctly, you is it.

      • RoHa on October 22, 2015, 7:34 pm

        “It seems as though you guys want to have it both ways. You protest that the Mufti was not reflective of the Palestinian people, and then you reject criticism of him.”

        Logic fail, again.

        There is no contradiction, or even tension, between “The Mufti was not reflective of the Palestinian people” and “The Mufti did not inspire the Holocaust”.

        Both claims can be true, just as “David Unaipon was not reflective of the Palestinian people” and “David Unaipon did not inspire the Holocaust” are both true.

      • RoHa on October 22, 2015, 7:38 pm

        Yes, Mooser. I’ve noticed that hophmi seems to be producing Witticisms.

      • Mooser on October 22, 2015, 9:26 pm

        “Both claims can be true, just as “David Unaipon was not reflective of the Palestinian people” and “David Unaipon did not inspire the Holocaust” are both true.”

        Sure, I’ll concede all that, but I Googled him, and he was a pretty cool guy nonetheless, in spite of not being reflective of the Palestinian people! One guy can’t do everything, but he did plenty. I’ll have to read some more about him. Thanks,

      • RoHa on October 24, 2015, 10:20 pm

        He’s on the $50 note.

      • Mooser on October 24, 2015, 11:27 pm

        “He’s on the $50 note.”

        He’s much more than that. I will think of him every time I trim my beard, or shear a Lhama. I’ll look for a biography of David Unaipon.

        Emerson, oft misquoted: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”

      • hophmi on October 30, 2015, 1:31 pm

        “iow, there’s no reason to push back against the idea the Mufti came up with the Final Solution or inspired it?”

        Sure, there’s a reason to do it. But not for Mondoweiss to do it, and certainly not by leaving out all the bad stuff the Mufti did do, like helping organize SS units in Bosnia, like prevailing on the Nazis to disallow Jews from emigrating from certain countries because he didn’t want them to end up in Palestine, like broadcasting calls during the war to kill the Jews wherever Palestinians found them.

        ” btw, there’d be no reason whatsoever to have to “rehabilitate” the mufti if a bunch of zio fools were not trying to turn him into evil incarnate. ”

        He was pretty evil, Annie. Don’t know why you can’t admit that.

        “the insult by netanyahu and all the limp hasbrats was trying to make him sound like some representative of the palestinian people”

        No. He was just one of the most popular leaders of his time, a mentor to a generation of Palestinian leaders, and a person who’s spoken of in glowing terms by Palestinian leaders today. But like virtually all Arab leaders, who are dictators, he was not technically representative of his people.

        “Annie, it’s very hard for me to believe that any Palestinian person who read Hophmi’s comments here wouldn’t have an overwhelming desire to get to know him, and have heart-to-heart political and personal talks. But, of course, I couldn’t possibly know for sure.”

        Most Palestinians don’t care about rehabilitating the Mufti like western political activists do, so I see no reason why my negative view of him should inhibit a Palestinian from wanting to get to know me. I think it’s far more likely that, based on his comments here, no one in their right mind would want to befriend someone like Mooser, who has very little to contribute other than nastiness.

      • annie on October 30, 2015, 3:22 pm

        Sure, there’s a reason to do it. But not for Mondoweiss to do it

        that’s rich.

        He was pretty evil, Annie. Don’t know why you can’t admit that.

        as i have explained before (check my archives) “evil” is a word a rarely use unless citing someone else or arguing against it as a descriptor. especially not to describe people. therefore, it goes against my instincts and understanding to use that definition, ever.

        i’m not quite as adamant about it as using the hatred or hate descriptor but it’s not anything i will ever be “admit[ting]” because its very existence i question.

        He was just one of the most popular leaders of his time

        certainly the british promoted him, and their jewish representative who appointed him. besides that was before all this nazi stuff took place. you’re still humping him. why? just to get some hook on palestinian intent. you’re like a broken record.

    • eljay on October 22, 2015, 11:56 am

      || hophmi: … if your point is that the Palestinian people had no role in the Holocaust, the best policy is to keep the Mufti out of the discussion completely. ||

      You might want to forward that memo to your King and Prime Minister.

    • oldgeezer on October 22, 2015, 11:56 am

      The Palestinian people had a role? I thought the mufti was a person?

      So you must endorse JeffB’s antisemitic position that all Jews are responsible for the actions of some Jews?

      • Mooser on October 22, 2015, 3:56 pm

        “So you must endorse JeffB’s antisemitic position that all Jews are responsible for the actions of some Jews?”

        Of course he does! Don’t you see how they use that “oldgeezer” ?

        See, if all Jews are responsible for the actions of some Jews, well, that sort of dilutes and diffuses the responsibility until you can’t hold anybody (certainly not any one Jews) responsible.
        And the corollary: everything suffered by “the Jews” is fodder for Zionist justification, no matter where or when it happened.
        That’s why I say Zionists make the Jews the Zionist whipping boy. We are their excuse.

        I don’t care what they say, everything tells me they (Zionists) think any other result then diffusion of responsibility into a fraudulent historical necessity and an immunity to responsibility, is inconceivable. I don’t think that is what will happen.

    • John O on October 22, 2015, 12:15 pm

      “Netanyahu made some crack about the Mufti and the Holocaust at the WZO.”

      Israeli PM makes joke about the Holocaust.?

      “…if your point is that the Palestinian people had no role in the Holocaust, the best policy is to keep the Mufti out of the discussion…”

      And who, pray, brought him into the discussion?

      • Marnie on October 22, 2015, 1:07 pm

        And if any other head of state made the remark Netanyahu did (which some are calling holocaust denial) imagine the sheetstorm that would follow, huh Hophmi? Are are you suggesting that “most of the Palestinians” you know are just as hair trigger as the Israelis? I would strongly advise you to stop making claims and trying to pass them off as fact. “Jews are not going to go into the street and stab Palestinians because Bibi Netanyahu made some crack about the Mufti and the Holocaust at the WZO.” A “crack” about the Mufti and the Holocaust”. Way to minimize Hophmi! And you’re damn right Jews won’t go into the streets and stab Palestinians when they can shoot them from the comfort of their walled in homes with the automatic weapons they can buy.

      • hophmi on October 22, 2015, 1:51 pm

        “And who, pray, brought him into the discussion?”

        Well, you guys did. Netanyahu talked about his activity during the war in a speech that otherwise got no coverage. You guys chose to make a big discussion out of it.

      • Mooser on October 22, 2015, 6:08 pm

        “Netanyahu talked about his (the Mufti, ed) activity during the war in a speech that otherwise got no coverage.

        A shame that we let a few “cracks” distract us from Netanytahoo’s substantive proposals, taking of responsibility, and immediate actions to ameliorate Israel’s intransigence in a single goddam area. Gee, could you link us to that part of the speech, which “received no coverage”?

    • Keith on October 22, 2015, 12:18 pm

      HOPHMI- “…there is no debate that the Mufti met Hitler….”

      Don’t you mean the FORMER, BRITISH APPOINTED Mufti? Also, there is no debate that “In 1937, Labor Zionist Feivel Polkes invited Eichmann to Palestine. On 2 October 1937, the Nazi visited a kibbutz. Realizing he was a German agent, the British deported him to Egypt, where he eventually met Polkes, who offered to spy for Germany in return for loosened currency restrictions for Zionists.” (Lenni Brenner)

      • lyn117 on October 23, 2015, 1:59 am

        The FORMER, BRITISH, ZIONIST, JEWISH APPOINTED Mufti. He was appointed by Herbert Samuel, a Zionist Jew, British High Commissioner for Palestine.

      • chocopie on October 23, 2015, 4:06 pm

        That’s not a reputable source.

      • Keith on October 23, 2015, 6:31 pm

        CHOCOPIE- “That’s not a reputable source.”

        Excuse me? Lenni Brenner, author of “Zionism in the Age of Dictators,” is a frequently cited and reliable source. What, exactly, is your disagreement with the quoted material?

      • annie on October 23, 2015, 6:36 pm

        maybe chocopie meant rense.

        here is another source confirming:

        It was therefore no surprise that Samuel was appointed first high commissioner of Palestine. His appointment made him the first Jew to govern in the Land of Israel in 2,000 years. Anxious to serve his country well, Samuel made it clear that his policy was to unite all dissenting groups under the British flag. Attempting to appease the Arabs in Palestine, Samuel made several significant concessions. It was he who appointed Hajj Amin al-Husseini, a noted Arab nationalist extremist, to be Mufti of Jerusalem. In addition, he slowed the pace of Jewish immigration to Palestine, much to the distress of the Zionists. In attempting to prove his impartiality, the Zionists claimed that he had gone too far, and had damaged the Zionist cause. Many Zionists were ultimately disappointed by Samuel, who they felt did not live up to the high expectations they had of him.

        but, he could have named the major of jerusalem from 1920-1934 Raghib al-Nashashibi

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius on October 22, 2015, 1:05 pm

      A world leader downplays Hitler’s role in the holocaust.

      And our resident zionist can’t find one word to condemn it.

      If anyone else on earth (other than an Israeli) had said that Hitler wasn’t such a bad sort, he just fell into bad company, we’d never hear the end of it from hopknee.

      “most Palestinians I know are smart enough not to do it”

      Are they the Palestinians you meet at your ‘outreach’ programmes?

      • echinococcus on October 22, 2015, 1:34 pm

        “If anyone else on earth (other than an Israeli) had said that Hitler wasn’t such a bad sort, he just fell into bad company…”

        If he had been born Jewish, is there a shadow of a wisp of a doubt that he would have been a Zionist leader? Not a bad sort at all for Hophmi.

      • hophmi on October 22, 2015, 1:50 pm

        “A world leader downplays Hitler’s role in the holocaust.

        And our resident zionist can’t find one word to condemn it.”

        Well, first of all, I’m not 100% sure what he was trying to say. If he was trying to say that the Mufti prevented Jews from emigrating, then he’s on solid ground. It appears that that was his point, since he’s clarified his statement since then. If he’s trying to repeat this Barry Rubin thesis that the Mufti came up with the Final Solution or inspired it, then he’s being a complete fool and should resign.

        “Are they the Palestinians you meet at your ‘outreach’ programmes?”

        I’m not sure what outreach programs you’re referring to. I have met and spoken with Palestinians, and none of them have tried to defend the Mufti’s relationship with the Nazis. If you know of some who do defend his relationship with the Nazis, his exhortations to “Kill the Jews,” and his work to convince some European Muslims to support the fascists, I’ll be glad to be in touch with them.

      • annie on October 22, 2015, 5:42 pm

        I’m not 100% sure what he was trying to say. If he was trying to say that the Mufti prevented Jews from emigrating, then he’s on solid ground.

        speaking of rehabilitation we know why you’re here. you’re trying to rehabilitate netanyahu. you’re the one on a rehabilitative mission. defending apartheid, exjudicial assassinations, ethnic cleansing, zionism — we got your number.

      • Mooser on October 22, 2015, 6:02 pm

        “I’m not sure what outreach programs you’re referring to.”

        I’m sorry, “Hophmi”, my oversight, credit where due:

        My participation in Muslim-Jewish outreach is with Muslim communities in New York. I am on the board of a new organization called the Jewish-Muslim Volunteer Alliance, which does joint Jewish-Muslim volunteering and holds an annual Iftar dinner each year, and I also sit on the board of an institute within the American Jewish Committee that does Muslim-Jewish outreach,” – See more at:

      • oldgeezer on October 22, 2015, 6:25 pm


        You aren’t sure what he was trying to say but you will defend a hitler apologist anyway by bringing up a complete redirection about emigrants. The clear reference was that the holocaust wasnt hitlers initial concept.

        No lie will be left untold by a zionist. Holocaust denial is allowed to further the criminal goal.

      • zaid on October 22, 2015, 7:52 pm


        I am a Palestinian and i love the Mufti and defend him all the time.

        I never met a Palestinian that hates the Mufti.

        There are streets named after him in Palestine.

      • bryan on October 23, 2015, 4:20 am

        Hophmi: “Well, first of all, I’m not 100% sure what he was trying to say. If he was trying to say that the Mufti prevented Jews from emigrating, then he’s on solid ground”.

        I’m not 100% sure what YOU are trying to say: Is this Netanyahu who so justifiably attacks the Mufti for preventing Jews from immigrating to Palestine the same Netanyahu who prevents Eritreans and Somalis from immigrating to Palestine, and still worse prevents Palestinians from returning to their homes and land in Palestine? And would Netanyahu justify his far more egregious policies by claiming that he was attempting to preserve the Jewish character of Palestine / Greater Israel? And was the Mufti not even more justified in resisting Jewish immigration when these were not simply helpless refugees but part of a long-declared policy to take control of the land and drive out (either by “voluntary” transfer or by expulsion) the native population? There is no room in this conversation for double standards, is there?

    • traintosiberia on October 22, 2015, 5:38 pm

      Show the quote or the quotes.
      Mufti testified personally for the 1937 Peel Commisson .
      Churchill was asking for use of violent means to put him in prison.
      Soon he left .
      May be he said,may he didnot.
      So did all Jewish leaders including Netanyhu,Bennett,Rabin and Sharon against Arab against Palestinian and against Muslim.

    • atime forpeace on October 22, 2015, 5:47 pm

      Right now as you are here discussing your pathetic past Israel is committing the same crimes that you complain so much about against the Palestinians. Israeli run ghettos, a population without an army bombed by Israeli airplanes exist today. Palestinians are herded like cattle through gates in order to b able to go to work in the mornings. Not in some past where the whole world keeps getting reminded that never again should this sort of thing happen to any people anywhere. It is not only happening but it is being perpetrated in the name of the same people against whom it was perpetrated in the pathetic past that you choose to keep reminding everyone about.
      Hitler and Germany are in the past…Germans of today have paid and continue to pay for crimes of which they were not participants off. Alexander Solzhenitsyn seems to have been correct.

    • inbound39 on October 22, 2015, 7:47 pm

      Hophmi….Talknic told you and showed you yhe other day that the Mufti was not in any position of power as he was removed from Office by the British in 1937 so he was the Grand Mufti of nothing. In otherwords Hophmi ,Netanyahu is getting his knickers in a twist over nothing and you happily are doing the same. What the lord thy Netanyahu said was lies…blatant and obvious.

    • ckg on October 22, 2015, 10:15 pm

      Palestinian leaders talk about “Jews and their filthy feet” defiling the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif

      May I suggest that the IDF troops remove their boots whenever they decide to storm the sacred mosque.

  6. traintosiberia on October 22, 2015, 11:33 am

    The question is was Mufti right and responsible in meeting with Hitler in 1941? Was he right in asking Hitler to stop sending Jews to Palestine?
    The narrative around Mufti had evolved over the years against the unalloyed pure Zionism propaganda background. We have been conditioned to view him through the Zionism prism.
    He was called by Churchill as fomentor of Arab revolt and should be arrested even by violent means in 1937 around the same time when the White Papers were coming out one after another and basically were in accord with the reasons and the arguments that underlied these Arab revolts . Churchill was offerring unconditional support with most obsequious ways to Weizmann Rothchild, Amery and other Zionists to fight for the establishment of the state of Israel in 1937 when he was also cautioning these Zionists against the activities of the English officials in Palestine who never agreed with the partisan selfish anti Englsih activities of Churchill . Churchill would express his disdain against the Emglish Government for not being enough pro Zionist . Churchill would definitely be more comfortable in company of today’s flag waving Arab hating GOP Tea Party and GOP Presidential hopefuls who are busy slamming Obama and Kerry .

    Mufti had no place to go. He had to leave Jerusalem .two attempts were made on his life .
    He failed not in his dreams but in getting it executed . He never asked for slaughter of Jews in Palestine . He wanted the newly arrived to be expelled from Palestine.

    Today we hear same cries from France,Hungary,UK and Sovenia for expulsion of the immigrants
    We hear in US . At least these immigrants are not building their armies,navies,and buying planes and building fortifications around enclaves . They haven’t gone into the neighbors houses and replaced them with their presence .The differences don’t end there. These refugee crisis are the products of the western causes . It was back then in Europe and it is still same from Afghanistan to Libya from 1980 to 2015.

    It is time for Arab to rehabilitate Mufti , to research him ,to find his relevance in today’s atmosphere where Churchill wear new American masks in the corridor of Congress and when Netanyahu says Abbas has joined IS and Arafat’s murder after branding him as terrorist Nazi goes unpunished .

  7. Emory Riddle on October 22, 2015, 12:08 pm

    And the ADL has any credibility why?

  8. Balfour on October 22, 2015, 1:39 pm

    These are the rants of a conspiracy theorist, not of a national leader- incidently, on the same day that Netanyahu was white washing Hitler, Jewish Israelis killed 5 Palestinians in extrajudicial shootings, and on the day before kicked an Eritrean man to death, in public view.

    Jewish Israeli society has truly gone mad!

  9. Ossinev on October 22, 2015, 2:19 pm

    @Hophmi ” He was a horrible human being and a war criminal” Take out the “was” substitute an “is” and you have the perfect description of your paymaster = Ben and for my next trick Nitay . By the way it appears to me that you are starting to suffer from HFS (Hasbara Fatigue Syndrome) and have staggered out of the starting blocks on this one. Should you actually be referring to “Palestinians” since as a people according to your manual they don`t actually exist.

  10. diasp0ra on October 22, 2015, 2:29 pm

    I wonder why people keep referring to him as “The Grand Mufti”. When he left Palestine by 1937 he was no longer the Mufti of Jerusalem. He certainly wasn’t anything near that when he finally met Hitler, yet he is always referred to as the Mufti. Why?

    At least call him the Ex-Mufti, people would look at me like I’m crazy if I referred to Barak as the Prime Minister of Israel and not the Ex-Prime Minister.

    I feel like this is not some innocent mistake, but rather a deliberate attempt in the Zionist narrative to tie Islam with Antisemitism.

    • John O on October 22, 2015, 2:42 pm

      “I feel like this is not some innocent mistake, but rather a deliberate attempt in the Zionist narrative to tie Islam with Antisemitism. ”

      100% correct, diasp0ra.

      • JWalters on October 22, 2015, 7:11 pm

        The entire Israeli narrative is essentially a lie. See “War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror”.

    • WH on October 22, 2015, 3:16 pm

      “I feel like this is not some innocent mistake, but rather a deliberate attempt in the Zionist narrative to tie Islam with Antisemitism.”

      Of course, and I believe Netanyahu called him the “father of the Palestinian people”.

  11. Qualtrough on October 22, 2015, 2:52 pm

    Some questions for Hopfmi:

    1. So you are OK with Netanyahu stating that Hitler had no plan to exterminate Jews until late 1941?

    2. Do you agree that there was such a thing as a Palestinian people in the 1940s?

    3. Do you feel that a people can be tainted by a leader who was appointed by a colonial power, and in fact was no longer in that position when he met with Hitler? Why should Palestinians bear any collective taint or responsibility for the statements of someone they neither elected nor chose?

    4. Do you feel Jews are collectively responsible for decisions made by other Jews? For example, prominent Jews responsible for thousands of deaths in the Soviet Union under Stalin? Or do you feel only Palestinians share that kind of responsibility?

    5. There isn’t a shred of evidence that the conversation Netanyahu referred to took place. Does that not bother you at all?

    6. Do you ever get sick of defending the indefensible?

  12. NoMoreIsrael on October 22, 2015, 3:05 pm

    Obviously, the Mufti’s fears that a Jewish colonization of Palestine would mean the destruction of the Palestinian people were rather well founded. Further, it is not the Arabs who have inherited the Nazi exterminationist mindset, but the Jewish population of Israel.

    • traintosiberia on October 22, 2015, 5:45 pm

      Exactly this question was posed to Churchill by Copeland and few other from British administration why he was so intent to deny the nationalism to Palestinian and fight for nonexistent Jewish entity .

  13. traintosiberia on October 22, 2015, 5:43 pm

    Question should be asked why the Jews tried to frame Mufti?
    It is not surprising given their plans to kill Churchill and Truman that they would seize on any reason and when nonexistent they would create one to further immediate advantage or gain

  14. traintosiberia on October 22, 2015, 5:57 pm

    “In a 2012 article for Al Jazeera, Massad explains that “Zionism would begin to rewrite the Palestinian struggle against Jewish colonization not as an anti-colonial struggle but as an anti-Semitic project.”

    Arab should pushback . The attempts have gone mainstream.
    The Arab should counter this machinations to plant guilt in the mind of Arab and neuterPalestinian resistance

  15. Kay24 on October 22, 2015, 6:03 pm

    An interesting article on the Intercept about Israelis calling man killed by soldiers a terrorist until they realized he was one of their own. I also read an article that said Israelis are jittery because of what is going on. Imagine how “jittery” the Palestinians must be for YEARS.

    They are so jittery they are killing their own or some poor immigrant from Africa.

    • oldgeezer on October 22, 2015, 6:18 pm

      In that incident it was reported he was a knife weilding terrorist at first.

      Israel…. the land of magic knives.

      • Kay24 on October 22, 2015, 6:28 pm

        Ah those knives, they suddenly appear out of nowhere, and who knows whether or not some may have been planted. Those zionists are liars, from Netanyahu downwards, so who can believe anything they say. It seems the well armed, well trained Israeli forces are afraid of knives.

    • inbound39 on October 22, 2015, 7:59 pm

      Agreed Kay24 :)… is like they are experiencing via their Higher Power what they have been visiting on Palestinians for decades. How very apt. Maybe there is a God after all. Things have certainly unravelled somewhat for the Israeli’s this week and support has dived. If it falls much more we could well see the tipping point Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi reached and then the World closed in and took them out. Here’s hoping. I note also that Ehud Barak’s difficulties court wise have disappeared off the Media pages….all gone quiet very quickly.

  16. traintosiberia on October 22, 2015, 6:05 pm

    Uri Avnery: (Adolf Hitler, who took his racism seriously, applied it to all Semites.
    He could not stand Arabs either. Contrary to legend, he disliked the
    Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who had fled to Germany.
    After meeting him once for a photo-opportunity arranged by the Nazi
    propaganda machine, he never agreed to meet him again.)

  17. NoMoreIsrael on October 22, 2015, 6:50 pm

    As Finkelstein (I think) pointed out, the ONLY biography at the Yad Vashem holocaust museum in Israel that is LONGER than the Muffi’s is the one for Hitler. In Yad Vashem, the Mufti’s role in the holocaust dwarfs that of Himmler, Eichmann, Goebbels, etc.

    It’s pretty plain what the garbage rodents of Israel are up to. Netanyahu’s statement is just the latest chapter in a very old playbook.

  18. talknic on October 22, 2015, 7:32 pm

    What the Mufti did or didn’t do is completely irrelevant to the actual extent of Israel’s self proclaimed and Internationally recognized sovereign territory and Israel’s illegal activities in territories it has illegally acquired by war and/or occupied since proclaiming its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) in its plea for recognition

    IOW it’s simply more stupid Israeli propaganda designed for useful morons to propagate on its behalf. A distraction, a nonsense typical of everything said on Israel’s behalf against the Palestinians. Complete BULLSH*T!.

    What is interesting is that it clearly demonstrates a just how mind numbingly stupid Israel’s apologists can be. Even simple maths eludes them

    It’s now 2015 … 1941 was 74 years ago. Life expectancy in 1941 was about 42 yrs. No Palestinian alive today voted for him or fought for him or even knew who he was. They would have been at most, tiny babies.

    • Mooser on October 22, 2015, 7:47 pm

      “What the Mufti did or didn’t do is completely irrelevant to the actual extent of Israel’s…”

      Exactly. And it might take over a year to clean up the US discourse from this side trip into a steaming pile. By that time, the ’16 election will be over.

  19. RoHa on October 22, 2015, 7:58 pm
  20. atime forpeace on October 22, 2015, 9:53 pm

    Is there a slow motion color revolution going on in Israel? Is it possible? The west will not confront Israel openly for political reasons but the military intel community is pretty much fed up with the “only democracy in the middle east”. The one country (Israel) that spies more on the U.S than most of its worst enemies.

  21. Qualtrough on October 22, 2015, 10:55 pm

    After this story broke I did a little research to discover some of the other horrible things Palestinians have been responsible for. The results are shocking, and show the insidious affect they have had over the years. This is just a short list of things we can thank them for:

    Selfie Sticks
    New Coke
    Jar Jar Binks
    Justin Bieber
    Leaving toilet seats in the upright position
    Insufficient battery life in cell phones

    Who knew?

  22. Arie Brand on October 22, 2015, 11:11 pm

    Netanyahu made it all up. Not only the account of the Mufti’s alleged conversation with Hitler, but also the “quote” from Wisliceny’s testimony at Nuremberg. It is now generally known that he is mendacious but what remains amazing is his almost naive belief that he can get away with his lies.

    Seven years ago I wrote on this blog:

    If there hadn’t been a Grand Mufti the Zionists would have had to invent him. In fact they seem to have partly succeeded in doing so. Let us have a look at his case.

    The evidence that somehow he was more or less intimately involved in the planning of the holocaust is, at best, a matter of double hearsay, the kind of thing that would be thrown out in any decent court.

    Dr. Rudolf Kasztner, a Zionist leader, allegedly testified that Dieter Wisliceny, a deputy of Eichmann, had told him that he ‘was convinced’ that the Mufti ‘had played a role in the decision to exterminate the European Jews…’ (Wikipedia ).

    Now this Kasztner was, in fact, a rather controversial character who eventually got involved in a libel case in Israel concerning his wartime past and was subsequently murdered (by an Israeli Jew).

    There was, as is well known, another Zionist leader, Joel Brand, who in his – doomed – effort to save the lives of one million Hungarian Jews, was in contact with Wisliceny and Eichmann at roughly the same time and place as Kasztner. Since he, contrary to Kasztner, came out of that affair with an unsullied reputation his testimony on the role of the Mufti, if any, might be slightly more interesting. I have, however, not been able to find anything on this.

    It has also been claimed that Wisliceny repeated, at Nuremberg, this accusation regarding the Mufti’s role in the ‘final solution’. However, the testimony he gave at Nuremberg on 3rd January 1946, as a witness for the prosecution, on what he knew of the ‘final solution’ makes no mention of the Mufti at all. Wisliceny wasn’t high up enough in the Nazi hierarchy anyway to know at first hand what went on at the Wannsee Conference (where neither he, nor, needless to say, the Mufti, were among the 15 participants – who, themselves, belonged to the second echelon of Nazi leaders).

    Yet the role of the Mufti in this all, has, mainly on the basis of this shaky 2nd or 3rd hand testimony of Kasztner, assumed mythical proportions.

    Peter Novick, whose reputation as a scholar has probably largely saved him from that easiest of accusations, to be a ‘self-hating Jew’, wrote in his path breaking study ‘The holocaust in American life’:
    “The claims of Palestinian complicity in the murder of the European Jews were to some extent a defensive strategy, a preemptive response to the Palestinian complaint that if Israel was recompensed for the Holocaust, it was unjust that Palestinian Muslims should pick up the bill for the crimes of European Christians. The assertion that Palestinians were complicit in the Holocaust was mostly based on the case of the Mufti of Jerusalem, a pre-World War II Palestinian nationalist leader who, to escape imprisonment by the British, sought refuge during the war in Germany. The Mufti was in many ways a disreputable character, but post-war claims that he played any significant part in the Holocaust have never been sustained. This did not prevent the editors of the four-volume ‘Encyclopedia of the Holocaust” from giving him a starring role. The article on the Mufti is more than twice as long as the articles on Goebbels and Goering, longer than the articles on Himmler and Heydrich combined, longer than the article on Eichmann – of all the biographical articles, it is exceeded in length, but only slightly, by the entry for Hitler.”

    It seems to me plain what has happened here. A man, who in the Nazi scheme of things, was probably no more than a pawn, has, exactly for the reasons suggested by Novick, been transformed into a main player.
    What seems to be clear is that the Mufti sought to prevent the transfer to Palestine of any such Jews who the Nazis might decide to expel. He has also been accused of having played a role in the formation of regiments of Bosnian (not Palestinian!) Muslims who fought on the side of the Germans.

    All in all his role doesn’t seem to have been very much different from that of another nationalist leader who organized fighting units (in his case of his countrymen) on behalf of the Germans: Subhas Chandra Bose, president of the Indian National Congress. I think that both the Mufti and Bose acted on the same motto: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
    I cannot recall, however, that the British ever argued that Indian rights to independence should be curtailed because of Bose’s wartime role; because here is a point that holds for both Bose and the Mufti and needs to be made most explicitly: one cannot claim that the Indians, respectively the Palestinians, were implicated collectively in the wartime deeds of these leaders.

    To focus on the Mufti again: even if he committed the dire deeds he is being accused of he did not receive instructions on these points from a representative body of his countrymen. It can even be questioned to what extent he could at that stage still be regarded as a ‘national leader’ at all.

    In one of the most important pre-war decisions for instance, the acceptance, or otherwise, of the 1939 British White Paper, he found, according to Rashid Khalidi, ‘most of the rest of the Palestinian leadership’ (which was in favour of acceptance) against him. The Mufti, assisted by some ‘younger and more militant advisors’, carried the day, but in exile, says Khalidi, he ‘was increasingly out of touch with events on the ground, and his policies became more and more unrealistic in the years that followed’.

    • Mooser on October 23, 2015, 7:55 pm

      “Seven years ago I wrote on this blog:”

      Welcome back, Arie Brand, and thanks.

  23. Pixel on October 23, 2015, 3:51 am

    I love this.

    Holocaust denier.

    Anything that ups the crazy.

  24. Pixel on October 23, 2015, 5:22 am

    AND I love Matt Lee … for me, it’s a true bromace.

    • Kay24 on October 23, 2015, 7:39 am

      That is funny, but it does show how ridiculous Netanyahu is, and yes, if he could he would accuse them of that too, to make the Palestinians look bad.

    • Marnie on October 23, 2015, 8:38 am

      This is fun Pixel!

      Netanyahu: Palestinians, with the assistance of Iran and Hezbollah, caused global warming, the crash of 2008 and 1929, Hurricane Katrina and mad cow disease.They are also the evil behind the Macarena, Vanilla Ice and E!.

    • Boo on October 23, 2015, 12:30 pm

      They didn’t kill all the dinosaurs — they only tried to kill the trained ones the Israelites were riding when they “liberated” Canaan back in Samuel’s day.

      At least, if you listen to Pastor John Hagee’s version that’s how it happened.

    • ckg on October 23, 2015, 4:58 pm

      Netanyahu: ‘No, I wouldn’t kill Baby Hitler. I would kill Baby Mufti.’

  25. Kay24 on October 23, 2015, 7:35 am

    Apparently the US found undetected Israeli flyovers over Iran, practicing flight missions. Hence the push for a diplomatic resolution. Killing Iranian scientists must have been part of the zionist plan. I am glad that Obama was able to prevent the scoundrels from starting another war.

    “U.S. officials, according to the Journal, believed that Israel was serious about striking Iran and the Obama administration stepped up surveillance of Israeli air activity. Israel was found to be practicing “strike missions” and undetected flyovers in Iran.
    Relations between Jerusalem and Washington had begun to deteriorate by then. Obama and Netanyahu  found themselves further and further apart by 2009, once they had both taken office. Netanyahu had been told by Republican lawmakers that Obama was “pro-Arab,” the journal reported, quoting unnamed Israeli officials. Those conversations had subsequently reached the White House.”

    read more:

    • inbound39 on October 23, 2015, 8:02 am

      That…whilst being disturbing reading is unsurprising Kay 24. It is how Israel operates. It is advantageous in my view that Russia has entered the Middle East because Putin will take no crappola from Israel or Netanyahu and they know that so will be more quieter because Putin will have no hesitation in retaliating against Netanyahu militarily. The next month or two will see some dramatic shifts,pressure is mounting on Israel and its stability and what is left of its support is crumbling and it currently has no answers or means to duck and dive. Putin is calling America a spade and shoving a spanner in their nefarious activities and if it means squashing Israel to get the monkey off its back it will.

      • Ellen on October 25, 2015, 4:06 am

        Yes, and Israel is caught off guard. They never saw Putin coming into this. Their cards were to play their US lapdog, which just can’t go fetch anymore like it used to.

        Iraqi injuries have left it too wounded.

        Israel’s survival depends on one state of many people, an ideal that is counter to the tenants of Zionism.

        No healthy society or state can survive as a tribal ghetto.

    • oldgeezer on October 23, 2015, 11:30 am

      Israel trying to provoke a war? Now there’s a shocker.

      • Kay24 on October 23, 2015, 1:02 pm

        I can only take some glee knowing that Booby boy’s great attempt to get the US to, or cooperate with them, to bomb Iran. We know how hard he pushed with lies, cartoon bombs, inviting himself to congress, and basically sabotaging the Iranian nuclear talks, and yet he failed miserably.

  26. Ossinev on October 23, 2015, 9:27 am

    Meanwhile down at the Old Dog and Duck.
    “Here Fred were you reading about that Hitler business the other day.Apparently this Prime Minister of Israel bloke whassname Netyahoo said that that Hitler didn`t really mean to do that horrible Holocaust stuff. Apparently according to this Netyou all he really wanted to do was to kick all of the Jewish people out. But what actually happened in fact says this Natyu was that this weird Arab geezer called Mufti turned up out of the blue , had a word in old Adolf`s shell like and next thing you know you had the camps and all that horrible stuff. I couldn`t Adam and Eve it at first but then this Nutyoo apparently is the head of all of the Jews all over the world so it`s like coming straight from the horse`s mouth. So basically old Adolf yes he was a really evil bastard but it turns out that the real villain was not him but this Mufti bloke. It`s a funny old world innit. Anyway Fred same again is it – two pints of lager and a packet of crisps ? “

  27. watzal on October 23, 2015, 11:14 am

    Every time, Netanyahu delivers one of his speeches, they turn out to become more berserk. Forget about his anti-Iranian rants before the US Congress, which have not only insulted President Obama but also the American people who had to witness how a crazed Israeli Prime Minister ridicule their president before the whole world.

    In his last speech to the World Jewish Congress in Jerusalem, however, he took the cake. He relieved Hitler of his evil deed and blamed instead the Grand Mufti for “the Final Solution”. This idea, whoever, wasn’t Netanyahu’s idea. This crazy stuff already “scientifically” proved in the book “Nazis, Islamist, and the Making of the Modern Middle East” by Barry Rubin and Wolfgang Schwanitz.

    Hey guys, do not be fooled by Netanyahu. He is not that intelligent, as the excitement is pretending. He just has very good spin doctors.

    Ludwig Watzal

  28. Emet on October 24, 2015, 6:20 am

    Phil, you need to admit that before Netanyahu’s comments you and most of the readers here had not heard of Haj Amin Al-huseini. So maybe Netanyahu’s comments were a stroke of genius when we know he was not placating Hitler? There was no State of Israel and no settlements when in 1929 Palestinian Arabs murdered Jews in Hebron and when Al-huseini visited Hitler and ask him to burn the Jews. Man up Phil, you need to admit that settlements have very little to do with what is really happening on the ground and maybe your support for Palestinian Arabs is a little “premature” given their violent and hate filled history?

    • annie on October 24, 2015, 8:15 am

      Phil, you need to admit… had not heard of the mufti?

      that’s quite an amusing grand entrance emet.

      • Mooser on October 24, 2015, 11:04 am

        “that’s quite an amusing grand entrance emet.”

        Annie, aren’t they always? Has there ever been a Ziobot debut which doesn’t resemble a Napoleonic coronation? Yup, swinging their Zionist omnipotence and omniscience high, wide and handsome!

      • just on October 24, 2015, 12:11 pm

        It surely is, Annie.

        Emet stumbled and/or lurched into the wrong site.


      • ckg on October 25, 2015, 4:20 pm

        Had not heard of the mufti? Google counts 184 articles before October on Mondoweiss that reference the mufti (or where a comment does).

    • eljay on October 24, 2015, 9:16 am

      || Emet @ October 24, 2015, 6:20 am ||

      Acts of injustice and immorality committed against Jews did not, do not and never will justify acts of injustice and immorality committed by Jews.

      The solution to acts of injustice and immorality – regardless of who commits them and against whom they are committed – is justice, accountability and equality, universally and consistently applied.

      The solution was not, is not and never should be the creation of an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and/or supremacist state.

      Leave it to hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists to argue otherwise.

      • Emet on October 26, 2015, 6:59 am

        ||Eljay @ October 24, 2015, 9:16 am||
        It’s amazing that you can come out with a statement about accountability when it appears from many of your previous posts that you have zero expectations from the Palestinians and do not hold them accountable for anything they have done. This is called patronizm and it’s very racist in fact. What you are saying is that Palestinian Arabs are not responsible for their actions and all because of Jews and of settlements. Never mind that Arab action against Jews began before the creation of the State of Israel.

      • annie on October 26, 2015, 2:21 pm

        This is called patronizm and it’s very racist in fact. What you are saying is that Palestinian Arabs are not responsible for their actions and all because of Jews and of settlements.

        resistance to occupation is legitimate and legal under international law. theft of land and transfer of civilians onto occupied land is a war crime and against international law.

        support for resistance is not racist.

      • eljay on October 26, 2015, 2:34 pm

        || Emet: … It’s amazing that you can come out with a statement about accountability when it appears from many of your previous posts that you have zero expectations from the Palestinians and do not hold them accountable for anything they have done. … ||

        It’s not amazing, because I fully expect all people to be held accountable for their respective actions. I believe in the universal and consistent application of justice, accountability and equality.

        If you weren’t a hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist, you might believe in these things, too. But you are, so you don’t.

        || … Never mind that Arab action against Jews began before the creation of the State of Israel. ||

        The solution to “Arab action against Jews” was justice, accountability and equality. The solution was not and still is not Jewish supremacism in/and a supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

      • Emet on October 27, 2015, 2:11 am

        How are you lot ever going to advance from your entrenched positions when you continually avoid answering simple questions e.g. Explain why Palestinian Arabs attacked and murdered Jews long before there were settlements and even the State of Israel? Of course the answer is difficult for those who stubbornly believe that the Palestinian Arabs are the equivalent of Ghandi and Mother Teresa, then we all know the truth but refuse to admit it. Blaming Jews, and not yourself, has been a tried and test practice going back a long, long time. On this website it would be wise to refrain from using “that” word. Those who rush to answer on the killing of Jews going back 120 years should read Mark Twain to understand how little was going in the region before more Jews came home. It was the money that the Jews brought in that created jobs and injected much needed life into the near dead economy of the region at the time under the Ottomans.

      • annie on October 27, 2015, 3:06 pm

        How are you lot ever going to advance from your entrenched positions when you continually avoid answering simple questions

        emet, i wouldn’t hold your breath. why don’t you explain to us why israelis forces keep killing, and blaming palestinians for their oppression? Blaming Palestinians, and not yourself, has been a tried and tested practice going back a long, long time. Of course the answer is difficult for those who stubbornly believe that the Jews are the equivalent of Ghandi and Mother Teresa, then we all know the truth but refuse to admit it.

      • eljay on October 27, 2015, 8:16 pm

        || Emet: How are you lot ever going to advance from your entrenched positions when you continually avoid answering simple questions e.g. Explain why Palestinian Arabs attacked and murdered Jews long before there were settlements and even the State of Israel? … ||

        Beats me. But the solution to acts of injustice and immorality committed against Jews – or anyone else – is justice, accountability and equality.

        Acts of injustice and immorality committed against a group do not justify acts of injustice and immorality committed by that group. And they certainly don’t entitle that group to an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state.

        When are you lot going to advance from your entrenched positions of having your heads up your hateful and immoral asses?

        || … Those who rush to answer on the killing of Jews going back 120 years should read Mark Twain to understand how little was going in the region before more Jews came home. … ||

        1. Jews who emigrated to Palestine were not “coming home” – they were leaving their homelands.
        2. Foreign Jews may have improved the condition of Palestine, but that did not entitle them (Palestinian Jews) or any other Jewish people in the world (non-Palestinians) to an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine.

      • RoHa on October 28, 2015, 5:23 am

        “Explain why Palestinian Arabs attacked and murdered Jews long before there were settlements and even the State of Israel? ”

        They were defending themselves and their country against foreign invaders who intended to take the country away from them.

        “Blaming Jews, and not yourself, has been a tried and test practice going back a long, long time.”

        When Jews commit crimes, we should blame them.

      • eljay on October 28, 2015, 8:17 am

        || eljay: … 2. Foreign Jews may have improved the condition of Palestine, but that did not entitle them (Palestinian Jews) … ||

        Correction: … 2. Foreign Jews who emigrated to Palestine may have improved the condition of Palestine, but that did not entitle them (as Jewish Palestinians) …

      • Zofia on October 28, 2015, 9:19 am

        Emet: “read Mark Twain…”. Have you read it?
        Read American Palestine by Hilton Obenzinger.
        Twain sardonically uncovers crudities, fraud, or illusion in place of the expected authenticity, exoticism, beauty, or, particularly in the Holy Land, spirituality.
        Mark Twain’s Innocents Abroad (1869) resulted from his excursion in Europe and the eastern Mediterranean with a group of American innocents. Unlike other enchanted grounds the excursionists visited in Europe and the Levant, Palestine’s associations are entangled in strange ways in America’s own acts of self-construction: it was “home” and not home.
        Innocents Abroad is written through the ironic screen of a typical American narrator through which Twain satirizes both Holy Land travel and American mannerisms.

        Quoting Mark Twain out of context on Palestine

        As B. Ra’ad writes:
        Twain was one of the most severest critic of sacred geography and of the missionaries back then. Mocking sacred geographers, those who sentimentalized and appropriated Palestine as “the Holy Land,” is the main target of Twain’s Innocents Abroad and Melville’s Clarel. Twain in particular is satirical about biblical accounts about Palestine and the invention of sacred places. What the Zionists hang on to is his saying that Palestine was “barren.” But he says the same thing about Greece and its islands. Then, for Melville, barrenness is an essential quality that has profound significance.
        Palestine is both green and barren in places, as it has been for millennia and as is still today. We should not fall into the trap of assuming that if the Zionists misuse some writers we should believe that and so dislike them. Our task instead should be to retrieve them and their integrity and greatness from the clasps of Zionist abuse.
        More fundamentally, both writers saw in Palestine the model on which the US national myth was built, that of the “Promised Land,” whose original people (the American “Indians”) have to be exterminated and replaced by those chosen by Yahweh. It is a model they rejected and deconstructed. Melville and Twain were truly the first anti-Zionists in the West, though perhaps not in the sense that we understand it today. They were against fundamentalism and monomania, against self-centered obsessions, against the use and abuse of religion to serve self-interested, colonial ambitions. Why do you think Melville was attacked after writing Typee? Why did he print his epic work Clarel only for private circulation? Why is Huck Finn not taught in some US high schools? Of course patriots and others want to appropriate such writers as much as they can, and try to forget that they are critical of the fundamentals of the US system and now of Zionist underpinnings. We should save Melville, Twain and others from from such use.
        Returning to Twain’s Innocents Abroad, his narrator ironically doubles Palestine and the US as “home,” and his creation of a self-ironic narrator must be understood if the work as a whole is to be understood. The narrative is constantly shifting in its tone and the position of its narrator, which is difficult to consider for what is regarded as a travel narrative. There is that haunting passage in Innocents where the narrator looks at the people in the north of Palestine and expresses the pioneering sentiment that the requirement of pity makes the white man feel so angry that he wants to “exterminate” the whole lot… throughout Innocents the narrator ridicules the biblical narratives, i.e. the sentimentalizing of sheer violence and murder, and the sacred geographers, who are his main target, e.g. Grimm, Robinson, and Thomson, whom he mentions by name and quotes to show their delusions. In fact, at one point Twain says that the Bedouin Arabs are the only remnant left of the “Israelites.” There is a lot more to say there. The important emphasis is Twain’s deconstruction of the US national myth of origins, which of course the Zionists are good at glossing over and people generally want to avoid seeing.
        More in his book: Hidden Histories: Palestine and the Eastern Mediterranean.

        Also read this:

      • talknic on October 28, 2015, 10:39 am

        @ Emet “Explain why Palestinian Arabs attacked and murdered Jews long before there were settlements and even the State of Israel?”

        The Zionist Federation began to colonize Palestine in 1897

        Blaming Jews, and not yourself, has been a tried and test practice going back a long, long time”

        Palestinians didn’t ask to be colonized

        ” Those who rush to answer on the killing of Jews going back 120 years should read Mark Twain to understand how little was going in the region before more Jews came home”

        Before Twain : Bayard Taylor who wrote of the Jezreel Valley in 1852 “one of the richest districts in the world”
        Laurence Oliphant 1887, again of the Valley of Jezreel “…was ‘a huge green lake of waving wheat, with its village-crowned mounds rising from it like islands; and it presents one of the most striking pictures of luxuriant fertility which it is possible to conceive’ “

        Twain wrote:

        “The narrow canon in which Nablous, or Shechem, is situated, is under high cultivation, and the soil is exceedingly black and fertile. It is well watered, and its affluent vegetation gains effect by contrast with the barren hills that tower on either side”

        “Sometimes, in the glens, we came upon luxuriant orchards of figs, apricots, pomegranates, and such things, but oftener the scenery was rugged, mountainous, verdureless and forbidding”

        “We came finally to the noble grove of orange-trees in which the Oriental city of Jaffa lies buried”

        “Small shreds and patches of it must be very beautiful in the full flush of spring, however, and all the more beautiful by contrast with the far-reaching desolation that surrounds them on every side”

        “Every where about the Mosque of Omar are portions of pillars, curiously wrought altars, and fragments of elegantly carved marble–precious remains of Solomon’s Temple. These have been dug from all depths in the soil and rubbish of Mount Moriah, and the Moslems have always shown a disposition to preserve them with the utmost care. At that portion of the ancient wall of Solomon’s Temple which is called the Jew’s Place of Wailing, and where the Hebrews assemble every Friday to kiss the venerated stones and weep over the fallen greatness of Zion, any one can see a part of the unquestioned and undisputed Temple of Solomon, the same consisting of three or four stones lying one upon the other, each of which is about twice as long as a seven-octave piano, and about as thick as such a piano is high. But, as I have remarked before, it is only a year or two ago that the ancient edict prohibiting Christian rubbish like ourselves to enter the Mosque of Omar and see the costly marbles that once adorned the inner Temple was annulled. The designs wrought upon these fragments are all quaint and peculiar, and so the charm of novelty is added to the deep interest they naturally inspire. One meets with these venerable scraps at every turn, especially in the neighboring Mosque el Aksa, into whose inner walls a very large number of them are carefully built for preservation“

        ” It was the money that the Jews brought in that created jobs and injected much needed life into the near dead economy of the region at the time under the Ottomans “

        Amazing. In the Land of Milk and Honey? A territory that had supported its people for thousands of years while exporting tons of fruits and wheat each year?

        Your schtick is interesting but completely irrelevant to the legal status of the State of Israel within its self proclaimed borders and that state’s illegal activities in territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” for the past 67 years

        What Mark Twain wrote or said absolutely has no legal bearing on the matter what so ever

        ‘we made the desert bloom’ has absolutely has no legal bearing on the matter what so ever

      • Mooser on October 28, 2015, 1:32 pm

        Thanks, Zofia. Thank you.

        “All right, then, I’ll go to hell”

    • Bumblebye on October 24, 2015, 11:48 am

      Land theft, resource theft, implantation of exclusively Jewish shtetlments on stolen land, restriction of movement, pass laws, destruction of livelihoods, constant violence and intimidation from iof and mikitant shtetlers…nah, couldn’t possibly have anything to do with disorganized attempts at resistance!

      Oh, and don’t forget the hundreds of Jews from Hebron who were sheltered from the violence by their Palestinian neighbors in 1929!

      The hate filled violent history is that of the zionist invaders of Palestine.

      • oldgeezer on October 25, 2015, 3:23 pm


        Why don’t you have the honesty to admit you are an ardent zionist trolling as a muslim.

        You’ve been blatant from the start

        You love the mufti. Are you a hitler apologist like nutty yahoo?

      • just on October 25, 2015, 3:25 pm

        Thank you, Annie and oldgeezer.

      • Mooser on October 25, 2015, 3:38 pm

        I’m still waiting for “a4tech” to tell us about the ‘anti-imperialist, anti-slavery and anti-neocolonialism’ Hitler!

        “Hitler opposed slavery, imperialism and neocolonialism that a vast majority of readers here directly or indirectly benefitted from.” – See more at:

        Gee, “a4tech” I guess you just answered your ‘Allies-vs-Axis “morality’ question’?

        What on earth are you up to? Do you know?

      • gamal on October 25, 2015, 3:41 pm

        “then send their fanatical racist violent goons, protected by the thieves occupation army”

        A trenchant article from empirestrikesblack detailing the policies one may have to follow in subjugating a population.

        “Torture in Palestine: a glimpse into Israel’s history of unrivalled cruelty”

        “Recognition of ‘Israel’ is tantamount to approval of the crimes against humanity that forged its existence. Such recognition is absolutely inexcusable on any level, moral, legal, or otherwise.”

      • on October 26, 2015, 7:19 am

        Whats the point mooser? The narrative of the I/P conflict in particular and world history post ww2 in general is pretty much set in stone in this part of the web.


    • RoHa on October 24, 2015, 10:53 pm

      What a splendid load of tripe.

      “you and most of the readers here had not heard of Haj Amin Al-huseini. ”

      If you read a few of the comments, you’d find that many of us are pretty well informed about history.

      “There was no State of Israel and no settlements when in 1929 ”

      It’s always 1929, isn’t it? Actually, there were plenty of settlements. The Zionist Jews drove tenant farmers off the land. And the Palestinians knew that the Zionists were planning to create a Jewish State and either expel the Muslims and Christians or subjugate them.

      ” Al-husseini visited Hitler and ask him to burn the Jews.”

      And this conversation is recorded … where?

      All in all, Emet, a good start. We are going to have a lot of fun with you. I look forward to seeing the next codswallop you offer us.

      • Emet on October 25, 2015, 2:50 pm


      • annie on October 25, 2015, 3:53 pm

        emet, at the top of every page is a link to our comment policy. read it and internalize it. no racist comments or nakba denial. we don’t debate whether the nakba occurred here (the holocaust either) — we’ve moved on. it’s also not something we negotiate in the comment section. it’s a banning offense.

      • Mooser on October 25, 2015, 5:20 pm


        Need a vintage rock-n-roll song to go with that. I’ll call it “Ellipsin’ and Elidin’ “!

        ‘Ellipsing and Elidin’
        The drek there’s no abidin’
        Been told a long time ago.
        You’ve been told…’

      • Emet on October 26, 2015, 2:40 am

        [..] It would be nice for one of you more enlightened ones to comment on why Palestinian Arabs resorted to killing Jews when there was no State of Israel and no settlements. We have been hearing over the past 30 years settlements, settlements, settlements but this does not match Palestinian action prior to the creation of the modern State of Israel. If this is the historic homeland of the Jewish people then surely Jews have/had a right to purchase land? As we know that it is the historic home land of the Jewish people, then denying Jews the ability to purchase land was racist. And what about the Fatwa’s banning the sale of land to Jews, punishable by death? Seems to be that you are quite selective in what parts of history fit the struggle.

      • annie on October 26, 2015, 2:37 pm

        If this is the historic homeland of the Jewish people then surely Jews have/had a right to purchase land? … denying Jews the ability to purchase land was racist

        before the founding of the state jews purchased 6% of the land. the other part, they didn’t because the people didn’t want to sell it. they stole what they couldn’t purchase through a series of discriminatory laws.

        lots of jews resorted to killing palestinians before the state was founded. your comment is the height of hypocrisy.

      • eljay on October 26, 2015, 2:42 pm

        || Emet: … If this is the historic homeland of the Jewish people … As we know that it is the historic home land of the Jewish people … ||

        Palestine was the historic homeland of its indigenous population: Non-Jewish and Jewish Palestinians.

        Palestine was not the “historic homeland” of any person in the world who:
        – underwent a religious conversion to Judaism; or
        – was descended from someone who underwent a religious conversion to Judaism.

        It still isn’t.

      • RoHa on October 26, 2015, 7:21 pm

        Emet, what does “historic homeland” mean? Jon s started trying to explain the concept, but didn’t finish.

        If you mean “the place where the ancestors of that group used to live a long time ago” then the historic homeland of the Welsh was in Central Europe, and the historic homeland of human beings seems to be somewhere in Africa.

        And so what? What follows from that? Do the Welsh have to right to buy land and set up a Welsh State in the Czech Republic? Do I have a right to buy land and set up a state in Kenya? If so, that would infringe the rights of the Czechs and Kenyans. It is absurd on the face of it.

      • Mooser on October 27, 2015, 11:12 am

        “Jon s started trying to explain the concept, but didn’t finish.”

        And I doubt we will ever see him again. He seems to be a casualty.

    • diasp0ra on October 25, 2015, 8:08 am

      It’s rather telling that 1929 is ALWAYS the starting point that Zionists like to begin their history. Tell me, did Zionist immigration start at 1929? Was the Balfour declaration in 1929? Did exclusivist Jewish settlement of the land begin in 1929?


      There are things before 1929 that led up to 1929? Wow! Inconceivable!

      It’s almost as if Palestinians aren’t savages! It’s almost as if they had issues with Zionists for reasons other than the heavily insinuated irrationality and anti-semitism and just plain old hatred for the innocent peaceful Zionist colonizers!

      By the way, I’m pretty sure that everyone here knew who Al-Husseini was, he’s featured prominently in Zionist propaganda everywhere. Zionists aren’t exactly subtle when they read out their talking points.

    • Zofia on October 25, 2015, 4:06 pm

      Hello every1 :)
      …and what’s with:”no settlements when in 1929 Palestinian Arabs murdered Jews in Hebron and when Al-huseini visited Hitler and ask him to burn the Jews”- say what? There where jewish settlements and there is no proof mufti said that. About jewish/zionist actions even during Ottoman times you can read works by dr Yuval Ben-Bassat- for a good start.

      ah… yes… the Zionist “favourite” 1929 year. I see you need more facts then propaganda, let me help you:
      Chaim Gerber in Remembering and Imagining Palestine:
      On August 15, 1929, a large group of young right-wing Jews, belonging to the Revisionist Party, organized a noisy political demonstration at the Wailing Wall […] where since the Middle Ages Jews prayed to God to redeem His people [well not so much: S. Ricca, Heritage, Nationalism and the Shifting Symbolism of the Wailing Wall, “The Jerusalem Quarterly”, issue 24, 2005]. Such a demonstration was a defiant and self-conscious violation of the status quo of the site, which, apart from being sacred to Muslims as well, was part of a Muslim religious endowment, and as such was unequivocally Muslim property. This was the climax of a tense year in the relations between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, a tension that revolved entirely around the Wall. It began on August 23, 1928. On the day before the Jewish Day of Atonement it was discovered that the Jewish beadle (Shamash) of the Wall had brought in a screen to separate men from women worshippers, clearly contravening the status quo concerning traditional Jewish rights of worship at the site. There was nothing in the political atmosphere in Palestine before that event that could be claimed as an early warning sign of a secret intention on the part of Hajj Amin to foment nationalist violence in the country. The British District Officer immediately gave an order to have the screen removed. As the worshippers opposed the order with force, the British police used some violence to enforce it. The incident, probably mainly because of the police reaction, aroused a wave of bitter criticism through- out the Jewish world and drew into the fray such personages as the Zionist “poet laureate,” H.N. Bialik, mourning the miserable condition of the Jewish people in Palestine, unable to possess as much as its most iconic symbol. Loud voices even called for exerting violence in order to achieve complete Jewish control of the Wall. No voice was heard criticizing or lamenting the hasty action of the beadle, or suggesting it may have been a premeditated provocation by someone. This aggressiveness spurred into action the Palestinian Arabs, themselves unquestionably acutely sensitive to what they saw as the larger picture, the Jewish dream of rebuilding the Solomonic Temple, the Wall being just the first step. Heading this activity was Hajj Amin al-Husayni, who, as president of the Supreme Muslim Council, was responsible for all religious endowments in Palestine. So far he had done nothing to foment the feelings of the Palestinian Arabs. The reactions of the Jewish community to the Wall were enough to do this. The Mufti immediately started a campaign of defence of the Buraq. The campaign included a regional Islamic congress, where strongly worded decisions endorsed the sacredness of the Buraq for all Muslims, and warned of the serious repercussions that Jewish intentions in the Haram area would have all over the world. The Mufti and the Palestinians in general also bombarded the British Governments with petitions setting out their own side of the argument. The Palestinian position was presented in a memorandum by Hajj Amin in October 1928. He mentions the fact that the whole area had been a religious endowment since the Middle Ages, and that Jews were allowed to pray next to it as a favour granted by the neighboring Muslims. Hence no appurtenances had been allowed there since medieval times, a stand confirmed by the Ottoman authorities whenever the Jews challenged the status quo.
      Another memorandum stating the Muslim position was presented to the High Commissioner some days later by the Supreme Muslim Council, basically repeating Amin’s document but going beyond it by articulating the real crux of the conflict: the Muslim fear that the Wall was only the first step in Jewish aspirations, and that in truth they were after the Haram area itself. At the same time, a large number of petitions were sent from groups and individuals all over the country, making the same point in strong language.
      A more objective weighing of the evidence shows that the case for the Mufti’s complicity in actually inciting people to engage in extreme violence is rather weak.
      Philip Mattar’s rendering of the chronology of events seems more plausible. According to this version, the Mufti had no grand plan to revive the national movement by igniting a conflagration around the Buraq. His protest against Jewish designs on the Wall was motivated by the intensive, worldwide Jewish campaign set in motion after the 1928 screen incident, a campaign intended to obtain the Wall for the Jews. Given Jewish influence in Great Britain, this outcome seemed quite likely.
      The Mufti’s role in the events was minor, and he deserves neither vilification nor glorification. All the extant evidence shows that he promised the British officials that he would do his utmost to pacify the crowd gathering in the Haram area on the 23rd, and that he did just that, stopping groups going in the direction of the Damascus gate and trying to talk to various groups to calm them. That his was the organizing hand behind the massacres in Hebron and Safad has never been substantiated.
      The Mufti himself certainly did not admit guilt. In a letter to the Times he declared that the urge of the Palestinians in the riots was a “spontaneous and uncontrollable protest,” not against Jews in general or Jews in Palestine, but against “unjust Zionist aggression.” He denies that the outbreak was instigated by the Arab political institutions, or that “Arab effendis” stirred up the violence for political purposes. On the contrary, the tension leading to the outbreak is the fault of the Zionists, who in 1928 had tried to turn the old status quo on its head by making the Wall into a sort of open synagogue (where the separation between men and women is the traditional standard). If this were not enough, he goes on, the intransigent and aggressive speeches made during the 1928 Zionist Congress on the Jewish right to own the Wall (totally disregarding the traditional status quo) inflamed Palestinian sensitivities and brought them to boiling point. However, despite the tension gripping the people, Amin insists that the leaders and he himself made every effort to calm their offended emotions. All the evidence indicates that the Mufti was treading on shaky ground, and that his interest in large-scale violence at this time was not overriding: he was after all a government employee, and certainly interested in keeping his posts, above all because he probably expected the British to come to their senses and discard the Jewish National Home idea and policy, in which case he would be a leading candidate to run the politics of an independent Palestine.

      The affair, then, started on August 15, 1929, with a Betar demonstration at the Wall. The British authorities got word of what was going to happen a day before, as the demonstration was being prepared in the Lemel school in West Jerusalem. High officials went to the school in person and warned the Betar leaders present that the demonstration would be illegal if it were to involve military-style marching, hoisting of flags, chanting of political slogans and the like. Strong assurances were given by Betar leaders. Next day, the interdicted procedures were performed, to the letter. A wild demonstration of Jewish youths took place, with extreme anti-Government and anti-Arab speeches, military marching and so on. Some curses against the Islamic religion were reported. On the 16th a Muslim counter demonstration was held, which went out of control, with some religious scrolls being torn and a Jew beaten up.
      Some excerpts from the report of the British Commission of Inquiry are relevant and important here. The report says, for example: “During and after the midday prayer in the Haram area, speeches were made by the Sheikhs of the Mosque of Aqsa and by the Mufti of Jerusalem.” Arab policemen were sent by the authorities to summarize these speeches. The conclusion drawn was: “Their evidence is to the effect that the speeches made were of a pacifying character but that some of the audience ascended the platform and called to the crowd not to take notice of what the speakers said because they were unfaithful to the Moslem cause.” The report further notes that next day, August 24, the MUFTI issued a communique in which HE CLEARLY CALLED FOR QUIET.
      The conclusion of the Commission regarding the complicity of the Mufti was that, in playing the part he took in the organization of the Burak campaign, he wished both to annoy the Jews, and also to mobilize Arab opinion on the issue of the Wailing Wall, but that he had no intention to utilize that campaign as the means of incitement to disorder.
      The Commission further dealt with Jewish accusations that the Mufti sent emissaries to the villages to foment violence. NO EVIDENCE of this was found and there are two reasons that make the allegation unlikely: FIRST, in three of the worst areas of violence (Hebron, Jaffa, and Haifa) the Mufti’s influence was at its weakest. SECOND, the Commission laid some emphasis on the witness from Beer Sheba who said he had received no directive from the Mufti and had heard of no such directive, and that had he received an order to come to Jerusalem, he would certainly have acted upon it. The Commission further praised the Mufti, stating that at least during the crucial days of August 23 and immediately thereafter the Mufti “exerted his influence in the direction of promoting peace and restoring order. On this point there was unanimity of opinion among the many official witnesses with whom during the course of our inquiry the question of the Mufti’s conduct was raised.” In general, the Commission RULED OUT PREMEDITATION. It was found unlikely, since the riots broke out at different times in different places, and there was no attempt to block roads to prevent police reinforcement, or to cut telephone wires to obstruct government directives and messages.
      …All this leads to the conclusion that the riots were spontaneous and the outcome of popular nationalism. That they were carried out for the avowed purpose of defending a holy site… in Hebron, where 69 Jews were killed by the crowd, an opposite phenomenon was also manifested. Not all the people of Hebron proceeded to massacre Jews. On the authority of a Jewish investigating body we know that out of 700 Jews in the city, a verified number of 450, probably more, were SHELTERED BY THE ARAB population in their own houses. In other words, the truth is that MANY MORE ARABS IN HEBRON CAME OUT ON THE SIDE OF PEACE AND HUMANITY THAT ON THE SIDE OF VIOLENCE. If anybody personally called for death to Jews, whether this was the Mufti or someone else, the fact is that most people in Hebron ignored such a call and even risked their own lives in defying it.

      READ: Hillel Cohen’s book “1929: Year Zero of the Jewish-Arab Conflict” (Keter, 2013)
      About the book Ran Greenstein writes:
      Cohen demonstrates in the book, this is the impact not so much of the real, historical, events of 1929, but the way in which they have been reconstructed and represented in subsequent political and cultural discourses.
      In the process he presents information not known before or not sufficiently highlighted. That the Arab attackers felt provoked by Jewish moves to change the prevailing arrangements in the Western Wall prayer space, that rumors [me: but there are sources that confirm the killings of Arabs by the zionists, more about it below…] of atrocities committed by Jews against Arabs fueled the wrath of Arab rioters, that Jewish attacks on Arab pedestrians in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv preceded or coincided with the Arab attacks, that Jews also murdered Palestinians in the course of the events, though not on a large scale, that many Palestinian residents helped their Jewish neighbors by standing up to the attackers and preventing them from harming Jews, that no solid evidence exists that the Palestinian leadership – especially Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the grand villain of Zionist historiography – incited the rioters, let alone that they operated on its instructions, that the British forces did not facilitate the attacks and usually tried to stop them but were not always quick enough, and so on. Most of the evidence Cohen presents is not new but he digs up evidence that remained obscured and organizes it into a coherent narrative that gives an overview of developments in different parts of the country, and makes sense of the story.

      So H. Cohen and Chaim Gerber support each other in their statements.

      Also: Beyond the general picture he tries to understand the specific features of each case, particularly that of Hebron. The tendency of younger Jews in that community to identify with the Zionist movement was a factor that contributed to it being targeted. Evidence about clashes between Jewish newcomers – American religious students – and local residents, and tensions related to the role of a Jewish-owned bank in the lives of indebted peasants in the region, provides a context for the particularly vicious nature of the violence in that town, though of course it cannot possibly justify any of it.- more here: You can read the book too! It took me some time to read it since it is in hebrew and my friend translated it for me one part at a time… ;p

      Read about slobdoka yeshiva, which applied into their “religious attitude” the policy of excluding Palestinians and Sephardi alike. At that point what for centuries has been a quite good cooperation between Jews and Arab-Pals in Hebron turned into a nationalist competition… Yeshiva has been connected already in 1907 with the racist policy, when they supported the VIII zionist congress that sent Arthur Ruppin with the aim to create “a Jewish milieu and of a closed Jewish economy, in which producers, consumers and middlemen shall all be Jewish” [The Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1990-1991- this quote is well known, you can search it in other sources if you want]. The same approach was implemented by avodah ivrit.

      Late Rabbi Baruch Kaplan [critic of the zionist ideology as was rabbi Sonnenfeld…): At that time in 1929, the Zionists had a slogan arguing that the Western Wall in Jerusalem was a Jewish “national symbol.” Of course, the Arabs disagreed with this idea, considering that they had control of the location for over 1,100 years. However, the Zionist mobs were yelling that “The Wall is ours!” It’s hard to understand why they felt that way considering they have no connection to the Jewish holy places whatsoever. An argument erupted in the Jewish newspapers about establishing a permanent prayer area for Jews at the Wall. This provoked the Arabs, and the rabbi of Jerusalem at the time, Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld begged them to stop and to be appreciative to the Arabs for allowing Jews to pray at the Wall for so many centuries undisturbed. His appeal was presented in English translation and in Arabic in the leading Arab newspaper as well as in Loshon Kodesh in the Agudah weekly, Kol Yisroel on November 22, 1929.

      However, the Zionists wanted a permanent setup under their control. The Zionists refused to heed the calls of Rabbi Zonnenfeld, and they called a large meeting of Jews in Jerusalem – supposedly some 10,000 people showed up. One of the speakers was their “chief Rabbi” (Avraham Isaac Kook), who proclaimed, “Hear O Israel, the Wall is our Wall, the Wall is One” (which is a ridiculous pun on the blessing, “Hear O Israel, the Lord our G-d, the Lord is One”). This began the conflict at the time between the Zionists and the Arabs.
      Afterwards, we were studying at the yeshiva in Hebron, and saw a bunch of boys in short pants carrying weapons on bicycles and motorcycles, running around the streets of Hebron. We were very worried about this. What were they up to? In brief, our rabbi, the supervisor of our religious academy, Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Epstein, called them for a meeting, but they refused. He was forced to go over to them, and asked them what they were up to. He accused them of wanting to provoke the Arabs. They responded that they were coming to protect us!! We cried out, “Woe is us! G-d have mercy!” They didn’t want to leave town until it was too late!

      ALSO: Segev (2000) reports about a meeting between mukhtars and Cafferata (Raymond Cafferata, the Assistant District Superintendent of the Palestine Police Force. Etzel, Lehi and Hagana (which gave the green light, tried to kill him, even in England) before the massacre: They had heard that Jews were slaughtering Arabs in Jerusalem; apparently the mufti was demanding they take action and threatened to fine them if they refused. Cafferata promised that everything was now peaceful and instructed them to go home and stay there. Indeed Jerusalem had calmed down by that time. The day’s death amounted to eight Jews and five Arabs. Fifteen Jews and nine Arabs had been injured. Indeed Palestinians in Hebron heard about the murder of the Sheikh Oun family of Jerusalem.
      Investigating Commission stated that ‘The Hebron disturbances started only when the report on the murdering of an isolated Arab family in the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem reached the town.’ (Palestine Commission on the Disturbances of August 1929, H.M. Stationery Office, 1930 p.1039). The secondary source reporting this is Susan Silsby Boyle,Betrayal Of Palestine: The Story Of George Antonius, Westview Press, 2001 p.156.

      Combining all the info, the zionist propaganda does not hold water about blood thirsty Arabs that just wanted to kills Jews… [if it was true, why Palestinians would save that many Jews in Hebron?]

      Again 1929 is used only for propaganda against Palestinians… no facts, no context … no mention of zionist racial policies towards them and no mention about killings of Pals at that time… bad for PR…

      • diasp0ra on October 25, 2015, 4:58 pm

        Thank you very much for this wealth of information. If Zionists had any shred of critical self reflection then they would read these sources and change their ways.

      • MHughes976 on October 25, 2015, 5:59 pm

        Fritz Grobba’s account of the November 41 meeting makes it clear as daylight that Hitler would do nothing that the Mufti wished, particularly make a declaration in favour of Arab rights that would call French colonial control of Syria. He did promise eventual destruction of the Jewish element currently under British protection, which I think cannot be taken as committing Germany to more than the elimination of the organised Jewish presence and the National Home.. No massacre was overtly discussed. It is laughable to read this record as suggesting that Hitker was influenced by his barely significant guest in the slightest degree.

      • RoHa on October 25, 2015, 7:57 pm

        “If Zionists had any shred of critical self reflection then they would read these sources and change their ways. ”

        Airliners will run the risk of hitting pigs.

      • RoHa on October 25, 2015, 8:01 pm

        Great work again, Zofia.

        And the overall context of the previous 30+ years of Zionist colonization makes the tension even easier to understand.

      • Emet on October 27, 2015, 3:09 am

        Zofia, I see you and the current Mufti of Jerusalem have been taking the same history lessons. We are talking about the “Mufti of Jerusalem” no less who just confirmed for us that there has always been a mosque on the Temple Mount from the beginning of time. I think you and the Mufti should retake arithmetic 101. If Islam and Arabic came about after the birth of Mohammad, which was 1400 years ago, we have some serious gaps here Zofia. Don’t you think?

      • Emet on October 27, 2015, 8:10 am

        Zofia, I understand by your comments that any Jew living in any town, village or farm was/is living in a “settlement”. When I mentioned settlements I was talking post 1967 and you quickly confirmed that all settlements are legitimate targets, even those prior to 1967. You want Israel destroyed so go ahead and admit the truth. What you are saying is that Jews do not have a right to live anywhere in the region as an independent people. Right? If you say otherwise then what about Jerusalem? Where Jews in Jerusalem long before Islam was established? At least 1,000 years before in fact. Palestinian Arabs have never controlled Jerusalem. Are you aware of this fact? Do Jews have a greater right over Jerusalem than Muslims? They certainly do. As Jerusalem is not a settlement it would be nice if you supported Jewish claims to the city. You cannot be half pregnant when it comes the connection Jews have to the Temple Mount. They do or they don’t. Which one is it?

      • Mooser on October 27, 2015, 12:08 pm

        ” I see you and the current Mufti of Jerusalem

        What’s his name “Emet”? I want to make sure I address him correctly and with the proper honorifics! So what is the name of “the current Mufti of Jerusalem”?

      • RoHa on October 28, 2015, 6:00 am

        Oh, Emet! You certainly do not disappoint in the quantity and quality of total bollocks you produce.

        “What you are saying is that Jews do not have a right to live anywhere in the region as an independent people. ”

        Is there a prize for packing the greatest amount of nonsense into one sentence? Insofar as “live as an independent people” makes sense (and that is not far), no “people” has that right.

        “Where Jews in Jerusalem long before Islam was established At least 1,000 years before in fact. Palestinian Arabs have never controlled Jerusalem. ”

        So what?

        “Do Jews have a greater right over Jerusalem than Muslims? They certainly do. ”

        Oh, that’s what. You are trying to support that claim. Please explain the chain of reasoning. How does the presence of ancient Jews give modern Jews greater rights than Muslims?

    • Zofia on October 25, 2015, 4:19 pm

      and for your second statement: “Al-huseini visited Hitler and ask him to burn the Jews”
      Bibi definitely based his words on a poorly written book by Barry Rubin and Wolfgang Schwanitz- they received good reviews mostly from Daniel Pipes fun club: the Middle East Forum and friends ;D
      Late Barry Rubin and Wolfgang Schwanitz, claim that mufti was actually responsible for the mass killing of the Jews of the Holocaust.
      They formulate the theory that Haj Amin was the architect of the Holocaust and that he had so much power over Hitler and his cronies that he was, in effect, the perpetrator of the mass murder of the Jews of Europe. Much of the material to support this comes from Fritz Grobba (former German envoy to Kabul, Baghdad and Riyadh, and Muslim-Arab affairs officer in the Nazi foreign ministry). But they don’t show any independent documentary confirmation of it!!
      The earliest accusations seem to stem from the circle of Rudolf Kastner, whose Zionist “rescue” operation dickered with Adolf Eichmann for Jewish emigration in return for trucks and other supplies in Budapest in 1944. Shortly after the war Kastner submitted an affidavit to British authorities in which he claimed that Eichmann’s subordinate Dieter Wisliceny had told Kastner he was convinced that the mufti had “played a central role in the decision to exterminate the Jews.” Rather than indict Husseini at Nuremberg, the British dismissed this and other charges as Zionist propaganda. (Philip Mattar, The Mufti of Jerusalem [NY: Columbia University Press, 1988], pp. 105-107).
      But in Rubin and Schwanitz book the notion that al-Husaini played a key role in Hitler’s settling on the Final Solution is based on one piece of thin hearsay evidence: comments that the controversial Hungarian Jewish leader Rudolf Kastner attributed to Eichmann’s subordinate Dieter Wisliceny. (Rubin and Schwanitz oddly credit the comments to Eichmann himself.)

      Jeff Blankfort read the piece carefully and passed along this comment: Dershowitz’s statement that the Mufti “personally stopped 4,000 children, accompanied by 500 adults, from leaving Europe and had them sent to Auschwitz and gassed,” is almost word for word from the FIRST part of a sentence by Raul Hilberg, on p. 504 of the “Destruction of the European Jews.” According to Hilberg, “4,000 children, accompanied by 500 adults reached Palestine and for that reason he [Mufti] asked the German Foreign Minister to do his utmost to prevent further immigration from Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary.” That’s it in 790 pages. There is no any other mention of the Mufti until the end of the book when the American Jewish Conference wanted him prosecuted as a war criminal- the evidence that he was involved in any way with the Nazi extermination operation does not appear to be in Hilbergs book.

      Robert Fisk rightly writes [reviewing the book]:
      When a proposal that Jews were to be released from Nazi captivity – 10,000 children via Romania to Palestine in 1942 – in return for the Allied release of German civilians, Adolf Eichmann noted that Haj Amin had heard of the plan and protested to Himmler, who, according to the book [by Barry Rubin and Wolfgang Schwanitz], “had then reversed his decision and sent them (the children) back to almost certain death”. The authors repeat the story that Haj Amin had visited Auschwitz extermination camp, drawing upon a sinister document recording the Palestinian Grand Mufti’s 1943 visit to Himmler at the Ukrainian village of Zhitomir (near Kiev), which is geographically close to the Polish town of Oswiencim (Auschwitz). Rubin and Schwanitz say that it is “POSSIBLE” Haj Amin visited the death camp on his way to Zhitomir, and that Treblinka and Majdanek camps were “also conveniently located for a possible visit along the route”.
      McKeekin quoted Hitler as telling Haj Amin that he would annihilate “the Jews living under British protection in Arab lands”, a sentiment which the Palestinian heard “with an air of gratification”. The source, again, is Grobba. And the problem is obvious. If we trust this account, do we therefore trust the Nazi version of history? […] how come the Nazis were scrupulously honest in recording Haj Amin’s actions and words?

      Idith Zertal: “Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood” and what she describes as: nazification of the Arabs… As she writes: mufti plays a “starring role” in the four-volume Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (edited under the auspices of Yad Vashem by Yisrael Gutman): The article on the Mufti is more than twice as long as the articles on Goebbels and Göring, longer than the articles on Himmler and Heydrich combined, longer than the article on Eichmann — of all the biographical articles, it is exceeded in length, but only slightly, by the entry on Hitler.
      The need to displace the charge of collaboration from Zionists to Palestinians grew.
      Shortly after Israeli agents kidnapped Adolf Eichmann and spirited him to his show trial in Israel, the once prominent journalist Quentin Reynolds was hired by the Israelis to do a hatchet job on Eichmann. Based on material supplied by the Zionists, Reynolds’s Minister of Death claimed that the mufti had been a close confidante of Eichmann, and had displayed an avid interest in the extermination machinery. Reynolds quoted the mufti as telling friends “the Palestine problem will not be solved in a diplomatic conference but by other means — simple and radical like the gas chambers,” and reported that “[h]is green turban was seen many times in Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Majdanek.” Yet the author offered no sources for any of these claims, which were published by Harold Guinzburg’s respected Viking Press in 1960.-IHR 2001 vol.20 no. 4.

      In poor written book: “Icon of Evil: Hitler’s Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam”, the authors claim that the relationship between Eichmann and Husseini “is well documented and indisputable.” (p51).
      The fact is, Husseini claimed that he did not know Eichmann. Eichmann claimed that they met once at a dinner. The degree of al Husseini’s involvement and the depth of his knowledge is largely a matter of speculation. The only source sited for a relationship between Eichmann and Husseini is the testimony of of a single German Nazi, Dieter Wisliceny. The entire premise of the book seems to pivot on the legitimacy of that one source.
      Hannah Arendt, who attended the complete Eichmann trial, concluded in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil that, ‘The trial revealed only that all rumours about Eichmann’s connection with Haj Amin el Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, were unfounded.

      EVEN Bernard Lewis called Wisliceny’s testimony into doubt: ‘There is no independent documentary confirmation of Wisliceny’s statements, and it seems unlikely that the Nazis needed any such additional encouragement from the outside.

      “I spent my life studying these things,’ said Saul Friedländer, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945. ”I don’t believe the prime minister’s disgusting statement deserves a serious answer… it simply shows who he is: somebody ready to falsify our most tragic history, for political propaganda purposes.”
      Deborah Lipstadt, the Dorot professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust studies at Emory University, said Netanyahu’s account is “just not a factually accurate statement.”
      “If the prime minister wants to learn more about this, there’s no dearth of books he could read.” She suggested he check out Friedländer’s book – which lays out how the Nazis planned and developed the final solution beginning in 1941. The mufti does not appear anywhere in the text.
      It’s true that between 1941 and 1946 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem — a religious figure appointed by the British in Mandatory Palestine — lived in Berlin. He met Hitler in 1941, and the minutes of that meeting have been examined by historians.
      “It’s pretty simple, we have a transcript,’ said Philip Mattar, the author of the first published biography of al-Husayni, The Mufti of Jerusalem. “There’s no mention of exterminating the Jews.”
      The mufti was known for making anti-Jewish statements, and lobbying the Nazis to prevent Jewish migration to mandatory Palestine, even as the Nazis began to funnel millions of European Jews into death camps. In his speech, Netanyahu claimed that the mufti was “sought for war crimes in the Nuremberg trials.” While al-Husayni’s name did come up during the trials, he was never “sought” or prosecuted. “The mufti was indeed quite callous,” Mattar said. “But it’s not like the Nazis needed encouragement to carry out the extermination of Jews. In fact, they regarded Arabs like the Mufti as very close to Jews and Gypsies in their status.” Lipstadt agreed. “Look, was the mufti upset that Jews were being killed? Probably not,” she said. “But did he suggest doing it? There’s no evidence of that.” But the mufti faded as a national figure after the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, said Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said professor of Arab studies at Columbia University. “He was a totally forgotten figure, a completely new leadership emerged throughout the 1950s,” he said. The renewed emphasis on the mufti’s links to the Nazis, Khalidi said, is the result of right-wing Israeli historians who are eager link the Palestinian movement with anti-Jewish sentiment. “He did align himself with the Nazis,” Khalidi said. “He thought the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Joshua Zimmerman, the chair of Interdisciplinary Holocaust studies at the Yeshiva University in New York, said that Nazi’s calculations leading up to the “Final Solution” are well documented by historians, and do not include the Palestinian leader at all. Zimmerman looked through the major academic histories of the Holocaust to find a reference to the mufti. He came up short. “In a few Israeli texts he appears in the footnotes, at the peripheries,’ he said. “That’s it.”

      An interesting article:
      David Motadel How Nazi Germany’s leaders tried to recruit Muslims to their war against Jews, Britain, and Bolshevism. Fragments:
      ON JULY 25, 1940, JUST AFTER THE FALL OF FRANCE and at the outset of the Battle of Britain, retired German diplomat Max von Oppenheim sent Berlin’s Foreign Office a seven-page memorandum. It was time, he argued, for a comprehensive strategy to mobilize the Islamic world against the British Empire.

      German officials showed little interest in the Middle East, and even less in the wider Muslim world. Hitler’s plans were focused on eastern Europe. In the non-European world, Berlin acknowledged the imperial interests of Italy and Spain, which Hitler sought as allies. A policy of Muslim mobilization was deemed unnecessary.

      As Germany’s war expanded into Muslim-populated lands, that outlook changed.

      In 1941, with German troops fighting in North Africa and advancing toward the Middle East, policymakers in Berlin began considering the strategic role of Islam more systematically. In November, German diplomat Eberhard von Stohrer wrote a memo asserting that the Muslim world would soon become important to the overall war. After the defeat of France, he wrote, Germany had gained an “outstanding position” and won sympathy “in the eyes of the Muslims” by fighting Britain…

      Nazi Germany made significant attempts to promote an alliance with the ‘Muslim world’ against their alleged common enemies: the British Empire, the Soviet Union, America, and the Jews.

      THE ATTEMPTS TO COURT MUSLIMS AROUND THE WORLD were first and foremost motivated by material interests and strategic concerns, not ideology.

      While race theory could justify excluding Persians and Turks from racial discrimination, the case of the Arabs was more complicated: they were seen by most racial ideologues as “Semites.” Regime officials were well aware that the term “anti-Semite” was problematic, as it targeted groups they did not wish to offend. As early as 1935, Goebbels’ Propaganda Ministry therefore instructed the press to avoid the terms “anti-Semitic” or “anti-Semitism,” and to instead use words like “anti-Jewish.”

      TO THE NAZI ELITE, any undesirable racial classification of Muslim populations was a wholly different question from the desirability of Islam as a faith. In fact, many of them, including Hitler, distinguished between race and religion when speaking about Islam.

      Heinrich Himmler Recounting a meeting between Himmler and Hitler in Berlin in February 1943, Edmund Glaise von Horstenau, a Wehrmacht general, noted that Himmler had expressed his disdain for Christianity, while finding Islam “very admirable”. A few months later, Himmler would again “speak about the heroic character of the Mohammedan religion, while expressing his disdain for Christianity, and especially Catholicism,” wrote Horstenau.

      Himmler, who had left the Catholic Church in 1936, bemoaned that Christianity made no promises to soldiers who died in battle, no reward for bravery. Islam, by contrast, was “a religion of people’s soldiers,” a practical faith that provided believers with guidance for everyday life.

      The most intimate insights into Himmler’s attitude toward Islam are given by his doctor, Felix Kersten […] To be sure, the Kersten memoirs are a problematic historical source. While some of the parts, especially those about his role in the rescue of Jews and other victims of the regime, were manipulated and fabricated by the author, others have proven to be accurate; the passages about Islam match other accounts of Himmler’s views about Muslims, and can be considered credible.
      According to Kersten, Himmler saw Islam as a masculine, soldierly religion…

      Hitler: After the war, Eva Braun’s sister, Ilse, remembered his frequent discussions on the topic, repeatedly comparing Islam with Christianity in order to devalue the latter. In contrast to Islam, which he saw as a strong and practical faith, he described Christianity as a soft, artificial, weak religion of suffering. Islam was a religion of the here and now, Hitler told his entourage, while Christianity was a religion of a kingdom yet to come — one that was deeply unattractive, compared to the paradise promised by Islam. For Hitler, religion was a means of supporting human life on earth practically and not an end in itself.

      This recruitment campaign was not the result of long-term strategy, but a consequence of the shift toward short-term planning after the failure of the Barbarossa plan. Most of the recruits were driven by material interests. For many of the Muslim volunteers from the Soviet Union who were recruited in prisoner of war camps, a significant incentive was the prospect of pay and better provisions — fighting for the Germans was an attractive prospect compared to the appalling conditions of the camps. Others, most notably Muslim recruits from the civilian population in the Balkans and the Crimea, hoped to protect their families and villages from partisans. Some were driven into the German ranks by ideology, nationalism, religious hatred, and anti-Bolshevism. Under the banner of the swastika, the volunteers believed that they would be supporting the fight against Bolshevism or British imperialism and for the liberation of their countries from foreign rule.

      …in the words of one internal SS report, the “entire Mohammedan world” that the Third Reich was ready to confront the “common enemies of National Socialism and Islam.” This misconception — this notion that Islam was a monolith that need only be activated — dominated the views of the Nazi leadership.

      Hitler lamented that the Third Reich’s efforts to mobilize the Muslim world had not been strong enough […]Instead, Germany had too long respected Italian interests in the Muslim world, which had hindered, as Hitler put it, a “splendid policy with regard to Islam.” “For the Italians in these parts of the world are more bitterly hated, of course, than either the British or the French.” The German-Italian alliance had “created a feeling of malaise among our Islamic friends, who inevitably saw us as accomplices, willing or unwilling, of their oppressors,” he bemoaned.

      his book: David Motadel, Islam and Nazi Germany’s War

      • just on October 25, 2015, 5:14 pm

        Thank you for your documentation of the exhaustive work of the historians and undoing the lies of the Netanyahus and zioliars of the world, Zofia.

        I very much appreciate Tony Kushner’s statement published in a rather good article in Salon yesterday:

        ““I would prefer not to comment other than to say that he is as bad a historian as he is a politician,” said Tony Kushner, a professor of history at the University of Southampton and the author of a number of books on the Holocaust. “If there was any justice in the world, he would leave both professions alone and do something useful with his life.””

      • Sibiriak on October 25, 2015, 10:04 pm

        “The Mufti” was a major issue in the 1946-1948 U.S. elections. PM Netanyahu’s father Benzion Netanyahu played a significant role in the anti-Mufti demagoguery.

        In the aftermath of World War II and the revelations of the full extent of the Holocaust, American Jews and Christian Zionists pressed President Harry Truman to endorse creation of a Jewish state. Truman, fearful the U.S. would be dragged into sending “half a million troops” to Palestine, preferred to stay at arm’s length from the conflict.

        But his political advisers saw trouble looming in the 1946 midterm congressional elections. New York State Democratic chairman Paul Fitzpatrick warned that if Truman failed to support Jewish statehood, “it would be useless for the Democrats to nominate a state ticket this fall.” And another longtime New York Democratic Party leader, Ed Flynn, predicted that if Truman backed down on Palestine, “the effects will be severely felt in November.”

        Enter the mufti. In the waning days of World War II, Husseini made his way to France, where he was placed under house arrest. Yugoslavia indicted him for war crimes committed by members of an all-Muslim SS unit he organized in Bosnia, but did not seek his extradition. The French and the British, nervous about angering the Arab world, likewise took no action.

        While Husseini was relaxing in his French villa, a series of exposes in the New York Post, PM and The Nation in early 1946 [I.F. Stone, “The Case of the Mufti”] revealed new details of his wartime activities, including his sabotage of a prisoner exchange with the Germans that would have saved the lives of 4,000 Jewish children.

        Furious American Jewish groups wanted Truman to intervene. The American Zionist Emergency Council sent the State Department a 13-page memo urging the United States to indict the mufti. [The State Department rejected the AZEC position:

        Another notable voice of protest was that of Benzion Netanyahu, the father of Israel’s current prime minister, who in the 1940s was director of the U.S. wing of the militant Revisionist Zionist movement. He sponsored large newspaper advertisements headlined “The Mufti Must Be Brought to Trial!” and featuring a photograph of Husseini meeting with Hitler. The administration ignored the protests.

        To make matters worse, in May 1946, the mufti escaped to Cairo — with what seemed to be the connivance of the French and British — and promptly renewed his efforts to incite the Arabs in Palestine against the Jews. For American Jewish leaders, it was another sign that London, with Washington’s tacit support, was taking the Arabs’ side.

        Even Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, usually the most pro-Truman voice in the Jewish leadership, publicly urged the president to “speak sharply and act decisively in relation to the [Palestine policy of] the British Government.”

        Meanwhile, the Republicans were taking up the Zionist cause. In 1944, the GOP had adopted the first-ever platform plank endorsing Jewish statehood (which the Democrats then had to match). From 1945 to 1948, the likely contenders for the Republican nomination, Sen. Robert Taft and Gov. Thomas Dewey, repeatedly urged creation of a Jewish state and criticized the Truman administration for waffling on the issue.

        The mufti’s escape and the revelations about his World War II activity were part of the tumultuous series of events in 1946-48 that helped inflame American Jewish voters against the Truman administration and, by association, the Democratic Party. It contributed to the Republican landslide in the 1946 midterm congressional elections (including the election of the first Republican senator from New York in 30 years) and the shocking defeat of Truman’s candidate in a congressional election in New York City in early 1948.

        These developments doubtless had a profound impact on Truman. Fear of losing Jewish votes to the Republicans moved Truman to endorse the idea of a Jewish state in 1946, when he heard Dewey was about to do so; to support the 1947 U.N. partition plan, when his advisers told him failure to do so would cost him “two or three pivotal states” in the 1948 presidential election; and surely influenced his decision in May 1948 to recognize the newborn State of Israel. [emphasis added]

        See also my comment here on the AZEC campaign against the Mufti, Joan Peters’ book etc.

      • annie on October 26, 2015, 1:30 pm

        The Mufti” was a major issue in the 1946-1948 U.S. elections

        considering the top 10 “major” issues in these elections, on a scale from 1 to 10, where would you rate the mufti? the #1 issue vs the 10th major issue?

      • straightline on October 26, 2015, 1:41 am

        Lots more reading. Thanks Zofia. Impressive. I’ve been missing the amazingly detailed comments by you and Hostage. Write more often!

    • Zofia on October 27, 2015, 8:02 pm

      oh Emet :D you are a funny man with a typical style of writing :) Of course you would write that I want Israel destroyed, no 1 can question the only truth right?- the zionist one :) That only makes you a person that has nothing to say about the matter but only cheap lines ;p
      There where illegal settlements build by Jews during Ottoman times [without permits, etc.] Settlers to gain more land used to attack nearby Arab villages- as I said read Yuval Ben-Bassat and others on the issue :)

      “Where Jews in Jerusalem long before Islam was established?”
      Since when ethnicity=religion, hmm?? You do know that there were several Arab migrations to the region before Islam, right? You do know that never in history Jerusalem was inhabited only by Jews, right? [even the Bible has info about that:)] It never belonged only to Jews [I hope that at least you know Jews didn’t build Jerusalem…]. The land of Palestine was always multiethnic and never in history was inhabited only by Jews… and I see you don’t know the dif. between Hebrews or Israelites, etc… go figure…. Do you think that in the 7th century a handful of people magically replaced local people? rly?
      You must also read more about historic Palestine and Jerusalem, about their autonomy throughout history, how muslim [and christian] families developed it, how it was perceived by the locals, etc- in Chaim’s Gerber book you will have the basics covered.
      Also you can try:
      1.J. Bussow, Hamidian Palestine: Politics and Society in the District of Jerusalem 1872-1908, Brill, Leiden 2011
      2.Jerusalem: From the Ottomans to the British, by Roberto Mazza
      3.B. Abu-Manneh, The Rise of the Sanjak of Jerusalem in the Late Nineteenth Century, [in:] The Israel/Palestine Question,ed. I. Pappe, Routledge, London
      4.B. Doumani, Rediscovering Palestine. Merchants and Peasants in Jabal Nablus, 1700-1900, University of California Press, Berkeley
      5.A. Manna, Ottoman Period, Late, [w:] Encyclopedia of the Palestinians…
      6.M. Campos, Ottoman Brothers: Muslims, Christians, and Jews in Early Twentieth-Century Palestine, Stanford University Press, Stanford 2011
      7.Y. Ben-Bassat, E. Ginios, Late Ottoman Palestine: The Period of Young Turk Rule, I.B. Tauris, London 2011

      You really have no idea about the history of the region, that is why you resort to those funny accusations of yours- as I said very typical for ppl like you ;p

      “Do Jews have a greater right over Jerusalem than Muslims? They certainly do”- wow where did you get that? Is there such a thing? Based on what? ;>

      ps. thank you guys! I also appreciate your articles and comments! They are very informative :)

  29. on October 26, 2015, 8:27 am

    If you can blame the Palestinians for anything, then you can absolve yourself from the guilt of treating them so cruelly. This is the irrational and thoughtless nature of many Israelis and their supporters. And of course, if you can blame them for the holocaust then you can absolve this guilt right from the beginning of the Nakbah. It is a natural intellectual goal for those who think like Netanyahu and his father the historian.

Leave a Reply